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

[Hussar]

I tried to bow out once, and failed. I'll try my save again.

Gizmo, I reject your version of reality and substitute my own. You have not brought up any, to my opinion, substansive reasons for rejecting the rest of the paragraph in favor of the line you have quoted. I disagree with you.

I do think the example could have been better made. Yup, I agree with that. But, my reader filter tells me to take this, in the context in which it is written, to mean, "If you screw up, instead of ejecting your entire night's session and letting the players have an easy win, use the rules to cover your ass and don't do it again."

You seem to read this as a universal application when it's clearly, IMO, not. The fact that the entire paragraph tells you to prepare for rituals means that this example is a last resort sort of thing that you can, as DM, fall back on when all else fails. You as DM, have the power to do this.

It does not say, "Do this each and every time you fell like doing it." That's what I disagree with you about Gizmo. I disagree with the idea that this is a universal thing. In the context of the paragraph, it's pretty clear that this is meant to be a very, very rare thing. You obviously interpret this differently. And I think there's nothing more we can really do from this point. I've stated my case, you've stated yours and we're just talking past each other now.

(Edit: In fact Imaro made some pretty good statements that I think support my position as well. In fact, if you bother to go back and look at the early pages you'll find that even someone who took exception to my tone agrees with what I'm saying. Someone else was willing to concede my point as long as he made it clear that he wasn't conceding that the DMG was a bad book. In fact, I could so quickly find counter-examples to your assertion here that I can't believe you made this in good faith.)

And on that topic, I've already said what I think of appeals to authority. And "everyone else believes the world is flat but you" says nothing of substance. Many people that disagree with me on this thread don't even cite the specifics of what was actually said in the DMG - see some of the latest posts.

Do you see the irony in these two paragraphs?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually I was responding to the statement that the loss of resources would discourage players from trying this again.

Well, I was inventing scrying scenarios from whole clothe to demonstrate ways in which not getting information might actually contribute to the game, as opposed to simply nerfing the ability.

Back OT - I think lying is a strong term in this case. Lying is twisting reality. As DM, you create the reality of the world. Deciding that a ritual doesn't work can't be lying, because you dictate what is truth in your world.

JW's advice tells us both why the ritual didn't work (throws monkey wrench in DM's plan) and what the DM should tell the players as to the reason why it didn't work (lack of sufficient description of target). Since A and B are not the same, when the DM tells the players B, he is telling them an untruth. In common parlance, this is lying.

The advice is poorly presented.

The advice seems pretty clearly presented. It is the content, not the presentation, that is bad.

But all it is really saying is that if your choices are nerfing an ability or having no game to play that night, it is better to play.

Disagree.

The advice says, IF the result "would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" THEN you can say "that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."

The only IF in that statement is that the DM's plans are thrown a monkey wrench. Period. Not that there will be no game. No matter what else you'd like to insert in there, it is clearly not there in the actual quote.

I suppose you could say that throwing a monkey wrench into the DM's plan for an adventure completely destroys the chance to play that night. If so, though, better to allow the PCs to do something unexpected than to nerf them. And if that means you break out Monopoly tonight until you can retool your scenario, so be it. But almost anyone would be far better off simply allowing the PCs their choices and their abilities, and see where they lead.


RC

 

[Umbran]

I see now why Fox News manages to stay on the air.

I should not need to say this - DON'T BE INSULTING.

Simple, direct, and to the point.

 

[Mallus]

And for me, the real issue is how easily the players solve the in-game problems.

Good point.

What seems strange to me is the implication that if the PCs come up with a plan that would short-circuit the adventure I have prepared, coming up with a rules-legal reason why it doesn't work and changing the BBEG's countermeasures on the spot is somehow dishonest.

Right. Being DM means serving up a steady stream of challenges to the players, whose aggregate intelligence most likely exceeds your own. It's a job that requires some judgment; to know when the best course of action is clap the players on the back when they find a clever way to circumvent your planned encounters, saying 'nice job' and 'well done!' and when the best thing to do is to try your damnedest to get them into those encounters, because directly overcoming them is where the fun is in that particular session.

 

[DandD]

12 pages of discussion, and nobody will concede to the opinion of the other side. I'd say that by now, the fronts have been clearly established.

 

[Hussar]

I should not need to say this - DON'T BE INSULTING.

Simple, direct, and to the point.

Appologies and edited.

/me bows out.

 

[catsclaw227]

I concede that all opinions are correct and none are absolute.

If your interpretation works for your game and your group, excellent.

 

[Remathilis]

No, actually, the ritual won't work if there are counter-magics in place. Not only the Forbiddance spell, but it is in the spirit of the rules that other rituals/powers/conditions, invented by the DM, splatbooks he uses, etc. exist that can thwart this power.

I didn't hope that needed to be stated. If the rationale was "the NPC in question is using counter-magic", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But your example is completely reasonable and is an example of a fair interpretation of the ritual (barring some of the details). I don't think anyone, including myself, is arguing that the DM has to let the ritual work *in spite* of the rules. In fact, that's about as obnoxious as the DMG advice in question.

Good, we agree on that.

Now, the REAL question is, whether telling your wife that the dress she's wearing DOESN'T make her look fat (despite the fact it does) is healthy for a relationship based on trust...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Disagree.

The advice says, IF the result "would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" THEN you can say "that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."

I was referring to the opening segment the OP quoted:

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

The definition of short-circuit I am familiar with is the electrical corrolary: "to make inoperable by establishing a short circuit in." IOW, the adventure no longer works if the ritual is allowed to work.

Another definition I found is: "to bypass, impede, hinder, or frustrate." Bypass causes the same problem as making it inoperable. The other three definitions are less of an issue. Is this the definition many are thinking of here?

Monkey Wrench as a noun (as JW used it): "something that interferes with functioning." Again, this is less severe than making the adventure inoperable. He may have meant to use the verb Monkey-Wrench: "to ruin (plans, a schedule, etc.) unavoidably or, sometimes, deliberately."

This is why I think the presentation is weak. His use of colloquial English can cause different people to interpret this section in different ways.

I read the advice as "If the ritual would ruin the adventure, do this." Others seem to be reading it as "If the ritual would interfere with your plans for the adventure, do this."

I can understand that some DMs would wonder what could ever ruin an adventure. Those DMs have the skills, luck and quick-thinking to avoid ruining the adventure. I strive to be one of those DMs. But if faced with stalling the evening's gaming while I try to think my way out of a bad situation or ending the evening prematurely, I would instead choose to have the ritual fail. I've been lucky (I'd say skillful, but I'm modest ) enough to not have to pull something like this for a very long time. Maybe it came with experience.

And to players that think it's easy and hold their DM to lofty standards: Please try running an ongoing campaign so you can experience the difficulties of DMing first-hand. It's easy to think you're perfect, it's harder to be perfect.

 

[FireLance]

Right. Being DM means serving up a steady stream of challenges to the players, whose aggregate intelligence most likely exceeds your own. It's a job that requires some judgment; to know when the best course of action is clap the players on the back when they find a clever way to circumvent your planned encounters, saying 'nice job' and 'well done!' and when the best thing to do is to try your damnedest to get them into those encounters, because directly overcoming them is where the fun is in that particular session.

For me, the key consideration is whether there is another encounter or challenge or complication that I either have prepared or can come up with at short notice to occupy the players for the rest of the session.

If yes, the ritual works, the PCs beat up on the BBEG, and I pull Plan B out of the hat.

If not, the ritual doesn't work, and you can bet your last dollar that if I haven't managed to come up with a good reason why by the end of the session, I will be spending the time between the end of the session and the start of the next thinking of the most plausible explanation and working it back into the adventure.