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

[Jack99]

Why is it better? Because you can't be honest about how you are conducting the game? I didn't think honesty and integrity were the domain of just one of the DMing styles. The players are people - and in my case my peers. They are not stupid, and they know when I'm lying most of the time (which is something IME chronic liars are not aware of.) They have no business being lured into a game under the pretenses established in the PHB and then lied to. This is not a matter of DMing style, this is a matter of honesty.

I think it’s better to hide behind the rules than be honest, precisely for the same reason as you claim JW gives the advice. To preserve the plot of the adventure. If I tell a player that his Observe Ritual fails because he would learn something that will ruin my carefully crafted adventure, he will surely know that something is definitely wrong with the person that he is trying to scry. If I on the other hand make it scry someone else or say that the ritual fails due to incorrect description, he will at least be left wondering. As I also said earlier, I would never do such a thing if the player came up with an ironclad description, only if it was vague so that my ruling could be defended in good faith – even if it wasn’t in good faith.

Well, I think this situation is clearer than you're suggesting, obviously. This isn't about "DMing" exactly or entirely. This is about how you conduct the game as a person, and how you deal with the other people at the table.

I think that lying can be part of being a good DM. One could argue that the most important thing about being a DM is that you ensure your players (and yourself) have a good time. If that means you need to fudge a roll or lie about why a ritual failed, I honestly do not see the problem. Of course, such action necessitates that you both know your players very well, and that you have a good idea about what is the most fun for them. My players know I have done this at times, but no one cares. They know I do it for the good of our game, and they trust me as their DM through 20 years (yes, same group) to make the best calls. If we look back at every incident and examine them carefully, I am sure we would find that some of my calls were the wrong ones. No one is perfect, and I am certainly not about to imply that I am. But thinking that somehow my decisions to lie to my players within the parameters of a game should make me a dishonest person is just… well I really do not see what the two have to do with each other.

Why would you (as a DM) want to hide what you're doing as described in this case? It contradicts pretty much everything that's established as the point of the game in the PHB. Obviously I understand that narrativist DMs, and pretty much every DM, has some interests, hopes, expectations, etc. that they want to see fulfilled in the outcomes of the game. But at what point do you throw out the basic structures of the game, expectations of the players, and even your honesty in order to accomplish this?

However, when performing the ritual you must describe your intended subject with sufficient clarity that the ritual unambiguously knows which creature you’re talking about. [/b]This ritual can show you a creature anywhere in the world, but it can’t show you a creature on another plane.
The magic of the ritual interprets your statement of intended subject in the most straightforward way possible. If your description is insufficient to determine a specific creature, the ritual fails and no components are expended. If your statement describes a subject other than the one you intended, the ritual still functions and the components are expended.

This is the relevant part of the ritual. Notice the bolded parts. According to those, a DM who rules (subjective) that your description is either not specific enough or fits someone else, is well within his rights to have the ritual fail or scry on that someone else. I see no changing of pretenses established in the PHB. Since the pretense is that it’s up to the DM to decide if the ritual works correctly.

 

[gizmo33]

Was it crappy advice when Gary adviced the same thing (if we for a second assume the OP was right) in the 1e DMG?

Was it crappy advice when Gary Gygax blasted his players with bolts of lightning? If Gary Gygax jumped off a bridge, would you? Seriously, why is what Gary Gygax writes even relevant unless appeals to authority count for something. "I'm a lich and I've DMed for 1000 years so do what I say!" If Gary had something pertinent to say on the subject and something more substantive than "do what I say" then feel free to quote it. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea depending on who expresses it.

 

[Jack99]

I'll answer first unequivocally and say yes, it was crappy advice then too. I've met and gamed with Gary and I think he was a hell of a great guy. He laid the foundations for us all and I'm forever greatful for that. Still crappy advice in that instance.

Fair enough. We will just agree to disagree. I do not see the problem with DM's cheating. I never do it in combat myself, because this is how my players want it done. But occasionally, I have, because I knew (or thought) it would make for a better game, changes or omitted things players would otherwise have found out about. 20 years and it's never been a problem. I know many of you guys have been playing and DMing much longer, so I am not trying to say that my way is the right way. I am merely trying to point out that for me, and my group, that advice is good advice. And all things considered, I doubt we are the only group that work the way we do.

 

[Imaro]

That's only a semantic difference that is derived from timing, not of intent.

Okay, seriously, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought...

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.

IMHO a good liar can make the second appear to be like the first, but a bad liar totally shows the difference between the two. YMMV of course.

 

[Jack99]

Was it crappy advice when Gary Gygax blasted his players with bolts of lightning? If Gary Gygax jumped off a bridge, would you? Seriously, why is what Gary Gygax writes even relevant unless appeals to authority count for something. "I'm a lich and I've DMed for 1000 years so do what I say!" If Gary had something pertinent to say on the subject and something more substantive than "do what I say" then feel free to quote it. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea depending on who expresses it.

I think it's pertinent because you mentioned Monte Cook in your OP, and chastised JW for not reading up on what other opinions there was on the matter, as if Cook was anymore an authority than Wyatt. It has nothing to do with following Gygax' advice blindly, at least nothing more than following Cook's advice blindly.

 

[gizmo33]

DMs have to metagame. There isn't another option. If you think there is, you're lying to yourself.

Since when did you guys become such advocates of truth-telling? So what if I'm lying to myself? Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what's advocated in the DMG anyway? You must be telling me that i'm a good DM. Thanks. Not only am I lying to myself, but I'm lying to you too! Hey! I'm an awesome DM!

I know this because D&D world to isn't a real place. Someone has to make it up. You can't logically derive it from some set of first principles. You can't figure it out from observation of reality. It is a creation of pure fancy.

The actual rules make it very clear what first principles are, and what the outcome should be. It's just simply a case of the DM not wanting to follow them. So I think you have no basis for suggesting that somehow this situation was too complicated for the DM not to lie about it. It was actually very simple, as presented.

If you do actually believe that DMs shouldn't metagame, then you should either 1. never DM ever, or 2. get very good at self deception so that you can convince yourself that your decisions aren't metagaming even though most of them are.

Your premise is not logically related to the issue. This isn't about metagaming. Telling the player that he rolled an 18 and he hits is metagaming. Telling the player that he actually didn't roll an 18, that he really rolled a 2, even though you both saw him roll an 18, is *lying*, and as a previous post has said, is not identical to metagaming. How you would ever come to the conclusion that I was against metagaming is, I think, without basis.

 

[gizmo33]

It has nothing to do with following Gygax' advice blindly, at least nothing more than following Cook's advice blindly.

I never suggested you follow anyone's advice blindly. I suggested that you be familiar with reasoning that MC gave on why you shouldn't nerf player abilities out of hand. Referencing that stood for me having to restate it in it's entirety. It's the reasoning that matters, not the person. I mentioned the persons name because many people on this board would know what I was referring to.

 

[gizmo33]

This is the relevant part of the ritual. Notice the bolded parts.

The quoted section of the DMG makes clear that the ruling has really nothing to do with the text of the ritual. The DM is simply advised to rationalize his decision to the player in terms of the rules, but the real motivation for the call is given clearly in the passage. Now, ironically, many of you are defending this by trying to do the same exact thing!

 

[gizmo33]

Well, this has been a very interesting read, but I am still left hanging, waiting for an answer to a question that was posed on the first post and has me tingling with anticipation: why shouldn't you follow a 20th-level character up a ladder?

The consensus was, in the beginning, that no one really wanted to hear part 2 since part 1 was so bad (and personally insulting to Wyatt, and other things).

If I were a good DM, I'd probably just lie to you and claim I made no such statement. That would help preserve the suspense. You're wrecking my plot.

But I'm apparently a bad DM, so I'll make no such claim and instead throw out more of a teaser:
Imagine that you are a first level character travelling with a 20th level character. You both come to a ladder in the dungeon. Climbing a ladder is "easy". (For arguments sake.) Look at page 42. The "easy ladder" is going to obviously throw your 1st level character into a chasm.

(And the frightening corollary of this thread is that if the DM wants it to, the "easy" ladder will throw the 20th level character into a chasm as well, but that won't matter because your 1st level character is already dead...)

 

[catsclaw227]

My goodness. Are we still analyzing a single line from the DMG? It was poorly worded advice, that's all. Intent was not to imply "Lie to your players and screw them", it was to suggest that a DM can make changes on the fly to help the story or prevent a DMing disaster.

I can't understand those that state the context of the poorly worded line isn't relevant. Context of a conversation is almost always relevant, context around a sentence of advice is critical when it is in a chapter all about advice.

I had some of my players look at the thread, and then the chapter in the DMG and they all said something like "This is silly. It's one friggin line. What's the big deal? The rest of the chapter helps a new DM in a huge way, and that one sentence isn't that bad." [Note: two players used more harsh language in their assessment]

I am glad I have my players.