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

[gizmo33]

I am fine with calling it a lie. I have no problem telling lies to my players if it benefits the story/adventure. I very rarely, if ever, do it, but that's another matter.

I agree it is another matter. And one that logically I would have no reason to think the DM would be honest about anyway. I would have no logical reason to take seriously an assement from a DM about how often he lies when he believes that he is justified in lying. The very reasons that he uses to justify lying to his players would be justification for lying to me about his lying as well.

Also it's only bad DM'ing according to you. Apparently, Mr James Wyatt, Gary Gygax and at least me think it's okay to lie/cheat within the game once in a while. I am sure there are plenty more people out there that agree with us.

Well, as I've said before, Wyatt had already established *other* principles about what good DMing meant that he AFAICT is contradicting with this bit of advice. So Mr James Wyatt also disagrees with Mr James Wyatt.

If you were even vaguely familiar with this thread, you'd know that other folks agree with me on at least some of these issues as well. This line of yours is really not even "reasoning".

And this is DnD, there's no King of DnD. So appeals to authority aren't relevant to me unless you think they made a particularly interesting argument. And if so, feel free to tell me what it was.

And if you think this advice is ok because James Wyatt gave the advice to you, then follow it. But why bother pretending to me that your position is based on any reasoning? Just follow his advice, and don't bother trying to understand what I wrote because I'm not James Wyatt so it doesn't matter, right?

 

[Mallus]

The intent of the DM, as I think we all agree, is to protect his plot, and preserve the "fun" of the game.

Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.

 

[Truename]

Also it's only bad DM'ing according to you. Apparently, Mr James Wyatt, Gary Gygax and at least me think it's okay to lie/cheat within the game once in a while. I am sure there are plenty more people out there that agree with us.

Yup, I agree. Except that I wouldn't call it lying or cheating--the DM makes the world, and he can change the world any time he wants, for any reason. He'll get away with it, too, as long as the details the players know don't change.

Players: Scry for the answer!

DM: Ah, crap, didn't think of that, and I don't have anything else planned for the evening. Let's see. I could...

1) Show them whodunnit incriminating himself and make up something else for them to do tonight... perhaps now they'll have to chase him through the sewers as he runs for his life

2) Decide that whodunnit was in disguise and tell them that the ritual didn't work because no one matches the description

3) Change whodunnit and show them 24 seconds of innocent activity

4) Keep whodunnit, decide that he isn't doing anything incriminating at present, and show them 24 seconds of innocence as a red herring

5) Keep whodunnit, show them something incriminating, but make him a pawn of a greater power

6) Say that they only saw whodunnit from behind, or in a dark alley, or something and the ritual didn't work because they didn't provide enough detail

7) Decide that whodunnit has anti-scrying rituals in place, and say that the ritual fails

8) Decide that whodunnit sees the scrying sensor and spins out an elaborate deception

9) and on and on...

All of these seem like fine answers... and they're exactly the same answers I would use if I thought of the scrying possibility in advance. Some are more creative than others, but I don't think any are "bad."

I get the impression that people on the other side of this issue want the DM to come up with the world in advance and then stick with it, acting as a sort of human computer that's simulating the world as the players wend their way it. That's one way to do it, but it's far too much work for me. My world is like the "Schrodinger's Cat" world described in another thread... any detail I haven't described doesn't yet exist, and I'll change the pieces that don't yet exist at any moment according to what I think will be most interesting and fun.

...And I certainly don't think my way is bad DMing, "cheating," "lying," or any of the other invectives being thrown around in this thread. And yes, it is fun. Sure, the players burst in on the evil foozle when he has just three rounds before unleasing the Big Bad. Sure, they know such precise timing is unrealistic and that it's all a bit of cinematic trickery. That's okay--we like it that way.

 

[gizmo33]

Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.

I wasn't talking about "this kind of nerfing". I was talking about the specific quoted example, which described the DMs motivations. That's not to say that I agree/don't agree with your generalization, it's just outside the scope of what I was referring to. I've tried to avoid having my reasoning based on a deeper psychoanalysis of what Wyatt's DM "must" have been intending. I'm instead inclined to accept what he wrote his thought process to be.

 

[gizmo33]

...And I certainly don't think my way is bad DMing, "cheating," "lying," or any of the other invectives being thrown around in this thread.

"Thrown around"!? It's plainly what was advocated in the quoted piece. What YOUR particular actions are isn't even relevant. So why employ this convoluted logic that seems to twist what was actually written in the DMG and substituted with your OWN advice?

And now characterize a rather plain definition of the word "lie" as some sort of "invective"? I think Jack99, someone otherwise "on your side of this" (I guess) has no problem with calling it a lie. Maybe take up this issue with him?

The term "straw man" gets thrown around too much on the internet, but your argument here is the definition of one. You want to argue about something that you think is more defensible (your own DMing strategies), rather than what was actually written in the DMG.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, but the advice in the DMG doesn't say, IF the description isn't specific enough, THEN ability doesn't work. That would have been fine. Redundant, even.

Actually I was responding to the statement that the loss of resources would discourage players from trying this again. But the text I quoted states that the PCs would not lose any resources (unless time is a valuable resource at the time of the attempt). So I don't see any discouragement in that regard.

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.

The advice is poorly presented. 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. Is it better to find a way to allow the ability to work and improvise another way to keep the adventure going? Of course it is and the rest of the same chapter tells you so. But sometimes your improv skills fail you. It can especially happen to a new DM. It can happen to a DM with a long resume who has had a week of overtime, kid's karate classes, family get-togethers, date night with the wife and has been up since 4AM when the players pull out the ritual short circuit with time to spare. You're tired and not at your mental best, you only had time to prepare so much and now the players have found a way to end a fun evening early. The one night of the week you get a chance to get away from everything else and kill some monsters and take their stuff and one stupid ritual is going to end it because you can't think your way around it.

The situation presented in the DMG has the specific caveat of "if it is going to ruin the adventure." If you are able to say you have never been caught in a tough spot as DM where player actions aren't going to ruin an entire night's gaming, then I congratulate you. You should never need to follow this advice. But for those DMs who do find themselves stuck completely, the DMG just tells you not to let your failure ruin everyone's gaming. If it becomes a habit your players are the point where a bad habit will end. If they don't like certain habits you have formed they will take action. From telling you politely to leaving your game. DMs learn through mistakes as well as successes.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.

And for me, the real issue is how easily the players solve the in-game problems. How the players solve the problems is not an issue, although if the BBEG is smart, he will have made preparations to counter the more common approaches. Whether the PCs overcome the problems is also not an issue. I have no real stake in the in-game outcome.

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.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, there were no limitations put on this action by Wyatt. "If the player is going to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, do this." That's pretty much as "often as you see fit." I'm not arguing that Wyatt is suggesting that you lie to your players for no reason.

Wrong. There are limitations placed on this action by Wyatt. It's limited by THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.

/snippage for asshattery. Sorry about that.

Again, you've stripped out any context to the quote and refuse to allow any of the other lines THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED to be allowed into this discussion. In the preceding line, Wyatt discusses that the DM should be ready for these rituals, but, sometimes, the DM might miss something. If he does miss it, then when it comes up in game, the DM has the power to adjudicate the ritual WITHIN THE RULES OF THE RITUAL, to his satisfaction.

Note, nowhere does Wyatt advocate CHANGING any rules. Not once.

Now, is the example not one of the best? Sure. Is there better advice that could be had? Quite probably. But, claiming that this is some sort of universal law, like Rule 0 that should be applied any time the DM feels like is going WAY beyond what's actually written there.

And you can see it. Psion, despite NOT reading the DMG takes you at your word and agrees with your interpretation. Yet, everyone who actually took the time to read the DMG disagrees with you. What does that tell you?

 

[gizmo33]

I get the impression that people on the other side of this issue want the DM to come up with the world in advance and then stick with it, acting as a sort of human computer that's simulating the world as the players wend their way it. That's one way to do it, but it's far too much work for me.

Actually, telling the player something false about a ruling you just made, and trying to remember falsehoods, as you go forward, is a lot of work too. What's not a lot of work is just following the rules. There's less to think about.

This isn't about being a computer. A computer can't interpret what "accurate description of the target" and stuff like that means in the ritual text. A computer can't consider all the consequences of player actions. But this isn't about that.

This is about not letting the players actually have an honest say in what's going on. You told the player "here are the rules about the ritual", and now you're not following them.

And please don't quote to me the rationalization given for the ruling, and claim that it is the real reason. Others have tried to do this on the thread at this point in the reasoning. It is clearly called out as a lie in the quoted section itself.

This isn't about being a simulationist either. Read the definition of the "story teller" player given in the 4E DMG and then imagine doing this to that player. The player was doing something that he thought would advance the story, and now you go ahead and nerf it because you think you know better. This about control, and dishonesty, and while I find it a common feature of many narrativists gaming style, I don't think it does the style justice.

 

[gizmo33]

Wrong. There are limitations placed on this action by Wyatt. It's limited by THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.

The rest of the paragraph reinforces the rationalization given for the ruling. But the reason for the ruling was not what you're claiming it was. It's clearly stated what the reason for the ruling was. The rest of the section does not change this.

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

Me too.

Again, you've stripped out any context to the quote and refuse to allow any of the other lines THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED to be allowed into this discussion.

They're not directly related. I've already tried to establish that, and I wish you would have challenged those points instead of ignoring them.

the DM has the power to adjudicate the ritual WITHIN THE RULES OF THE RITUAL, to his satisfaction.

That's not what he's doing. He's using the rules of the ritual to *manufacture a bogus explanation for the failure of the ritual.* It says right in the quoted section what the real reason (plot protection) is for the ritual failing. The section was never intended as a how to rule fairly on the Observe Creature. It was how to protect your plot IN SPITE of the rules for rituals.

Note, nowhere does Wyatt advocate CHANGING any rules. Not once.

Of course not? Where did I say that? Why would someone who doesn't follow rules feel any need to change them?

Now, is the example not one of the best? Sure. Is there better advice that could be had? Quite probably.

Everything you write seems to undermine this assertion.

But, claiming that this is some sort of universal law, like Rule 0 that should be applied any time the DM feels like is going WAY beyond what's actually written there.

If Rule 0 is so obviously within the rights of the DM in this context, then why didn't he simply explain it to the player that way?

And you can see it. Psion, despite NOT reading the DMG takes you at your word and agrees with your interpretation. Yet, everyone who actually took the time to read the DMG disagrees with you. What does that tell you?

Nothing, since it's not true. Look at Raven Crowking's posts. Look at Jack99 - he doesn't even agree with my conclusion but he acknowleges that the DM is lying - he just think it's ok that he does so. I don't know what else to do other than suggest you read the thread.

(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.