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

[LostSoul]

What's acceptable "cheating" for the DM relies on what the players want out of the game.

If using ritual will rob them of what they want, then the advice is good. I imagine this is more of the simulationist mindset - wanting to recreate a specific story.

If using ritual will not rob them of what they want, then the advice is poor. I imagine this is more of a gamist or narrativist mindset.

Given that 4e is a gamist game, it's bad advice.

 

[Jack99]

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.

What a round-about way of insinuating that I am a liar.

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.

You keep saying that. Could you explain what you mean. Or maybe this was done earlier in the thread? I must have missed it if so.

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".

I never claimed that no one agreed with you. Just that you have not provided any proof of anything, besides an opinion, which some people in this thread happen to share.

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.

Point was that you said that a lot of people agreed with you. Fine. I just thought I would at least mention 3 people with a lot of experience as a DM and who disagree with you. You claim that JW's advice is bad, as if it was an universal truth - it's not.

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?

You attempts at insulting me are really bad. Of course I do not care where the advice comes from. Good advice is good no matter from who it comes. Same with bad advice.

Anyway, I am out as well.

Cheers

 

[gizmo33]

Do you see the irony in these two paragraphs?

First of all - I pointed out that what you said was incorrect - and you haven't addressed your mistatement. Instead, you've immediately changed the subject to that of something you find ironic. I think we will both agree that you will find something to be right about. But this is not a good-faith way of having a debate.

Secondly, I don't see much irony in pointing out that (a) what you said was objectively false and (b) *were* it true, it wouldn't matter anyway IMO. I've been pretty clear all along that my core argument is based on no part on what other posters have said. I was the one that wrote the OP. I'm plenty capable of carrying on this debate without appeals to desperate tactics like "well can't you see that no one agrees with you!" This IMO is a sign that someone isn't trying to reason from principles but is instead trying to "win" something that's not worth winning. I'm not going to change my opinion on something because some imaginary group of people looks at me funny. I wouldn't expect anything different from you and I think had you realized that you wouldn't have seen any irony in what I wrote.

 

[gizmo33]

What a round-about way of insinuating that I am a liar.

Your indignation here is unwarranted and consequently an unfair tactic. Unless I'm mistaken, you already said that you lied. In fact, you said it was ok that you lied sometimes. So by your definition you've already called yourself a liar (which I actually don't think because i don't share your definition). I was talking about a subject that you started when you brought yourself into it. So my "insinuation" was largely just repeating what you already told me, coupled with some pretty basic logic.

If I claimed to lie about A from time to time, and I then held myself up as a source of information about how often A occurs, I think it would be reasonable to be skeptical about that. I see no reason for you to be insulted in this case.

You keep saying that. Could you explain what you mean. Or maybe this was done earlier in the thread? I must have missed it if so.

It's a fair question but a mammoth task if you're upset about me insulting you. A beginning of the answer would involve reading the section on "saying yes" (page 28) and contrasting that against the advice given in the quoted section.

I never claimed that no one agreed with you. Just that you have not provided any proof of anything, besides an opinion, which some people in this thread happen to share.

That seems reasonable. But I think there are grounds for my opinion that make it a little more substantial than "I like the color blue." Some opinions are more subject to principles and consistency than others.

Point was that you said that a lot of people agreed with you. Fine. I just thought I would at least mention 3 people with a lot of experience as a DM and who disagree with you. You claim that JW's advice is bad, as if it was an universal truth - it's not.

Ok, fair enough. I think the DM in the example was dishonest. I think that's an opinion we both share, but still just an opinion. I think that the DM in the example was making a poor decision. That's not an opinion we both share, but that's an opinion too. I think the reasoning for why it was a poor decision and bad DMing is actually given in the DMG itself. But even if that is true, it's just opinions expressed in the DMG, so it's just an opinion ultimately. I can't prove to you objectively that not being honest with your players, or even people in general, is a bad thing.

You attempts at insulting me are really bad.

Look you're either honestly insulted in which case I have to apologize for something that I didn't intend. But I've already dealt with a similar issue earlier in the thread when certain folks attempted to manufacture false indignation at some supposed insult I directed at JW. Even though they pretty much misunderstood what I said (or intentionally mischaracterized it, only they know). So please consider the possibility that you're misinterpreting this. This applies to the above case as well.

Of course I do not care where the advice comes from. Good advice is good no matter from who it comes. Same with bad advice.

I was reacting to your continued mention of Gary Gygax without ever stating what you thought it was that he said that was relevant to the subject. I note what you're saying here, but my impression before was from what you were saying (or, actually, not saying) and not intended as malicious.

Anyway, I am out as well.

We've probably always been.

 

[Psion]

What's acceptable "cheating" for the DM relies on what the players want out of the game.

If using ritual will rob them of what they want, then the advice is good.

To me, this sounds contrary to the way most players think. The most basic desire of a player who selects a ritual--or any character option or ability, really--is the desire to benefit from that option when it comes up. Just like a player who picks a combat move expects to do cool moves in combat, a player who selects a divination expects to overcome an in game obstacle by applying that ability.

Which is why I maintain the proper thing to do is to design adventures such that the divination is a benefit but not a trump card, earning the players progress towards their goal. Simply contriving to make the ability useless is not fair to the player.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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."

Some very fine reasoning, too, so I can certainly see your point of view.

I will point out that, of the two options (ruin the adventure/ruin your plans) that the quote does say "If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" (emphasis mine).

I can understand that some DMs would wonder what could ever ruin an adventure.

Indeed.

Given a ritual that allows observation for a very short window, and given that the DM utterly controls what is seen during that window, I very much doubt that the ritual could utterly ruin an adventure.

Even if you learned the identity of the murderer in a murder mystery, surely there is an adventure to be had in apprehending the man and proving what you know. After all, it's not like every court in the land is going to accept "We know by magic" to rule over the life and death of the Lord Mayor's son.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Out of curiousity, who would have found this good advice if it was not about divination rituals, say, but about a PC power like CAGI?

i.e., ".., but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using powers, either. For instance, CAGI requires the player to be specific when describing the intended target. If allowing CAGI to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that the CAGI failed to affect the intended target because the player's description wasn't specific enough."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I will point out that, of the two options (ruin the adventure/ruin your plans) that the quote does say "If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" (emphasis mine).

That's why I think the advice is poorly presented. Both "Short-circuit" and "Monkey Wrench" have ambiguous meanings. Instead of being flowery and trying to write in a "Joe 6-pack" voice, he should have written in a professional game designer voice. If he used the term "hinder" or specified that he was speaking about an action the would cause a minor malfunction then it would be clear to me that this was bad advice. If he used the the term "ruined" or specified a situation where gaming would come to a halt because you can't come up with a better solution then I would be 100% certain that the way I am interpreting the advice is correct and therefore IMO good advice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's why I think the advice is poorly presented. Both "Short-circuit" and "Monkey Wrench" have ambiguous meanings. Instead of being flowery and trying to write in a "Joe 6-pack" voice, he should have written in a professional game designer voice. If he used the term "hinder" or specified that he was speaking about an action the would cause a minor malfunction then it would be clear to me that this was bad advice. If he used the the term "ruined" or specified a situation where gaming would come to a halt because you can't come up with a better solution then I would be 100% certain that the way I am interpreting the advice is correct and therefore IMO good advice.

I can easily come up with examples of the DM's expectation as to how game events might flow being ruined; I cannot come up with an example of how the game itself might be ruined in this specific case.

Perhaps this is a failing of mine.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Out of curiousity, who would have found this good advice if it was not about divination rituals, say, but about a PC power like CAGI?

It might, if I knew what CAGI stood for.