The OP did have some pretty harsh personal comments leveled at the designer, so I don't see anyone casting the first stone.
CommentS? As in "more than one"? I don't know what you guys are talking about. As I explained above, there was only one paragraph that even discussed Wyatt personally at all - and that was the discuss the issue of the interpersonal problem that Wyatt's advice here would cause IME.
Also, it should be pointed out that the OP left out the next sentence in the section he quoted, which contained some more useful advice:
I didn't leave it out by accident - the preceding statement forms a complete thought - this bit you quote is almost a non-sequitur. The advice was already given.
It's as strange to me as if I were to write something silly like "If the player tries to use a spell that kills your favorite NPC, tell the player he's a cheater and ask him to leave your house. Oh, and don't forget NPCs can use counter spells." I really don't think the second sentence would do much to deflect people's objections to the first.
Rather, it says the DM can make the decision that the description wasn't specific enough. He doesn't have to tell the player this, just make a mental note of it.
This doesn't seem plausible to me. Why would the DM "make a mental note" of something
he knows is not true? He didn't want the players spell to succeed because of the way he conceived his plot - AFAICT this is made clear. The ruling in this example is a rationalization of this fact, which is hidden from the players, and a dishonest explanation is instead offered to the player.
What happened to the "say yes" advice, as others have pointed out? Part of my fanciful 1000 post critique of the 4E DMG would point out the MANY places in the book that apparently contradict themselves.
What happened to players helping to "write the story", or whatever one calls it. It's the players game too, and apparently the player thought that at that point in the story an Observe Creature spell was warranted. Well, all of the sudden it seems that the true one-sided, self-serving nature of my worst opinion of the whole narrativist thing rears its ugly head. The players are captives in a story the DM wants to tell.
That's not "playing" the game of DnD. This is *not* what's implicit in the fact that you're going to play a game where people roll dice. Why in the world would you even bother to have stats for NPCs? Just have the players keep rolling and act like you're writing down damage until you've concluded that a sufficient amount of suspense has built up. At which time you say "the villain is dead" and everyone yells "huzzah!".
Plus, the OP citation of the DMG has nothing to do with banning. It's about existing rituals in play. The crux of the paragraph is this: "Don't give the characters less than they are entitled to, but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using a ritual."
You're right, it has nothing to do with banning. If a DM doesn't want to use scry rituals in his campaign (for example) I'm totally cool with that. And I find your advice about using scry in the game (which I didn't quote) to be much more sensible than the paragraph I quoted in the OP.
But I do not read the paragraph to have the same meaning as what you're saying here. If the author were trying to say that you shouldn't "give the characters less than they are entitled to" then I'm completely at a loss as to how that paragraph demonstrates that - other than saying it. Say "don't be unfair to the players" and then turn around and give an example where you are unfair to the players? I think the players are entitled to hear an honest explanation about how you are going to run the game.
And it's such an important aspect of the game IMO. The entire game of DnD is full of dice doing wacky things, characters with powers the DM isn't familiar with, players doing things that take the DM by surprise etc. DMs have to learn how to deal with unexpected things in the game. This one paragraph does not do the subject justice. As I said before, he alludes to your "rights" as a DM without being explicit about what those are - but if it's anything like what his example suggests they are then I found it extremely objectionable to frame what IMO was insulting behaviour towards the players as somehow a "right" of the DM.