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

[Lizard]

It might, if I knew what CAGI stood for.

Come And Get It, a Fighter encounter power which automagically pulls all foes in a Burst 3 towards the fighter, then the fighter attacks them. It doesn't matter how intelligent the foes are, or if they are immobilized (forced movement works on immobilized foes), or if there's no reason for them to merrily trot over to the fighter and get wonked -- they just *do*, no questions asked, no save, no nothin'. It's not a "taunt" or a mind control power, since there's no Attack vs. Will, or a Charisma bonus, or anything -- the fighter just scoops up every foe within 15 feet and moves them into melee range.

 

[Evil_Dead_Jedi]

Castles & Crusades would easily fix all of this.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I'm going to geuss it's a strength, not a failing. Some people are really good at improvising when things go awry. Some are good at winging a good adventure without preparation. But not everyone is and sometimes within the group you play with the person that has been chosen to DM may not excel in either skill (especially as a beginner) and may get stuck in the predicament of ruining a night's game.

It's hard to come up with an example straight out. Usually it stems from a combination of immediate factors that leaves you feeling like you have no way out. When given time to think about it you find it hard to believe anything could ruin your game, but put on the spot in game you might feel differently.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm a little surprised that "Skipping to the end" on page 98 under the heading of 'Fixing Problems', and "Squelching" on page 101 under 'Poor Structure' have not been raised.

The passage in question on page 27 struck me as being out of place compared to the text before and after, but the 2 passage above are specifically in complete contradiction to it.

I'm therefore thinking that the passage is guilty of being merely poorly worded, nothing more.

I do disagree strongly with the OPs assertion that there is 1000 things wrong with the 4E dmg. I've read the first 100 odd pages and have already concluded that this is the strongest DM guide to date - and the 3E DMGs 1 & 2 were both pretty solid.

My personal favourites are the rules for mounts, flying, and the advise regarding the awarding of XP.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm a little surprised that "Skipping to the end" on page 98 under the heading of 'Fixing Problems', and "Squelching" on page 101 under 'Poor Structure' have not been raised.

The passage in question on page 27 struck me as being out of place compared to the text before and after, but the 2 passage above are specifically in complete contradiction to it.

I'm therefore thinking that the passage is guilty of being merely poorly worded, nothing more.

Which raises another thought; perhaps the paragraph remained from an eariler draft and was not corrected (or, was written by another author at the last moment to fill space) and thus doesn't jive with the "say yes" philosophy of the rest of the book.

Unless there is other examples in the DMG, perhaps it is an abberation? (Not unlike a mind-flayer. Mmmm Brains...)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Castles & Crusades would easily fix all of this.

Thanks for your insightful input.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Which raises another thought; perhaps the paragraph remained from an eariler draft and was not corrected (or, was written by another author at the last moment to fill space) and thus doesn't jive with the "say yes" philosophy of the rest of the book.

Unless there is other examples in the DMG, perhaps it is an abberation? (Not unlike a mind-flayer. Mmmm Brains...)

Yep, that sounds reasonably likely. It's just so clunky compared to all the work around it that it really stood out.

So far I haven't come across anything else like that, and I currently have the luxury to be pretty thorough.

 

[Obryn]

I can't believe this thread is still going on.

I seldom fudge, and roll all my dice in the open, but at the same time I think all the rage about DMs lying is overblown.

I do my prep-work in stages, usually. I seldom plan out a long, drawn-out adventure when I'm rolling my own from scratch. At best, I'll have a list of important stats that may or may not be needed, general notes about what everyone who's not the PCs are doing, some notes and details of locations that might come into play, and then I adapt from there. Next session, I take what happened, add anything new I might need, drop things that turned out to be unimportant and/or irrelevant, and prep some more from that point.

Maybe it's because of the way I prep for games, but I also don't think there's a big difference between what I improvise between sessions, and what I improvise in the middle of a session. I don't think on-the-fly adaptions are "lying." There's simply no there there for me to lie about. I just keep things reasonable and internally consistent without going out of my way to screw the players out of success.


In the case of the Horrible Passage Of Game-Destroying DOOM and MISERY, I'd wing it as such:

(1) If the enemy in question has reasonable resources, access to rituals, and is magically competent or has magically-capable allies, I may not know ahead of time that they've cast anti-scrying rituals. I simply haven't prepared that deeply; it's completely possible I have no game stats on them whatsoever. If it's logical that they have, then they have. If not, not. The Lich-King likely has, even if I don't bother improvising it before the game. Ditto, Black Angus the Grandfather of Assassins. Karl the Bold, a wandering evil knight, likely hasn't.

(2) If the PCs' description really wasn't good enough, well, that's the way the ritual works, and that's that. I would never call a two-paragraph description "not good enough" however. I guess a completely literal reading of the PASSAGE OF DOOM would imply I should, but frankly I can't see taking it at face value, given the rest of everything.

(3) All else being equal, I love it when my players find clever solutions to problems I throw at them. It's impossible for them to short-circuit my plans, insofar as I really have no plans. If a guy I thought might turn out as a recurring villain turns out to be a chump.... well, that's pretty awesome IMHO.


So yeah. That little bit of the DMG kinda sucks. It's incongruous with most of the rest of it, and I'm inclined to think it's poorly-worded. Regardless, I don't think it would ruin a new DM's game, or spoil a group's experience. I really don't see how this turned into a 13-page thread, frankly. I guess the undercurrent of unspoken edition war may be propelling it? Or maybe having a bad paragraph or two renders a whole book useless trash? I'm puzzled.

-O

 

[Evil_Dead_Jedi]

Wow. "Threadcrapping" for saying something nice about a game system? I want to say I'm shocked. But I'm not. Ahh, the land of the free. Ok then, how about this... there is no system that will fix the arguments happening in this thread. Sorry folks. At least Dice4Hire appreciates my newfound love for C&C.

 

[Psion]

Wow. "Threadcrapping" for saying something nice about a game system? I want to say I'm shocked. But I'm not. Ahh, the land of the free. Ok then, how about this... there is no system that will fix the arguments happening in this thread. Sorry folks. At least Dice4Hire appreciates my newfound love for C&C.

EDJ,
you may not have much history here, but for the record, ENWorld has been the target of both well meaning (but tiresome) system evangelism as well outright orchestrated board raids from the C&C forae. Understand that some locals are not interested in what C&C has to offer and are further jaded by repeated attempts to present is as a panacea for all our gaming ills.

At any rate, I do believe your post is off topic and besides the point. This thread is primarily about a passage in the 4e DMG. This is a discussion of an editorial problem and GMing philosophy, not a gaming problem to be handled by a particular rules set.