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

[gizmo33]

The advice there is don't let the players ruin the game for themselves.

This sort of attitude was EXACTLY my motivation for the thing about "adults" in the OP. In both other sections of the DMG as well as other posts on this thread, people mention the philosophy that players and DMs are somehow co-creators of the so-called "story" in the campaign. But then pretty obviously, and quickly - both here and in the quoted section of the DMG - the DM suddenly becomes a tyrant.

If the narrativist gaming style is one that everyone is on board with, then why does it seem so natural for DMs playing in that style to lie to his players about it? The DM can say "hey, your scry fails because otherwise the adventure would be ruined." and the player will say "Wow, man, thanks for saving me from ruining the game for myself! You're the greatest DM ever!"

-if scrying will destroy a complete adventure or campaign, then I'll throw something in the way or otherwise show them something really misleading.

This raises the question of exactly what the definition of "destroy a complete adventure or campaign" is. Do your session notes burst into flame when the PCs kill the BBEG? The only thing this seems to me to be destroying are *your expectations* - and it's very presumptuous IMO, though consistent, to get those mixed up with the campaign.

So maybe it would help to be clear about exactly what role you expect players to play in determining the events of the campaign (which you probably have been with your own group, but IMO the PHB and DMG have not been). If you want DM to have "plot action points" that he can use to thwart player actions for no other reason than say so. In fact, since it's all so much good for the players then say so in a large disclaimer in the beginning of the Players Handbook. Then everyone is being honest about the game.

But...I've been DMing for over 30 years. If you're talking about a new DM, sometimes it doesn't hurt to say, "You can't plan for everything, don't let simple solutions solve complex problems." In math tutoring speech, consider the highest number problems on the SAT--if the answer is too obvious or easy, it's almost certainly wrong.

Well, I hope you're directing this advice to the new DM, because saying "no, it doesn't work because I don't want it to" is a pretty simple solution isn't it?

Secondly, I really don't think actual thinking people of the professions that use math or even logical thinking go out of their way to create complexity. In fact, people win medals for coming up with simple proofs and solutions to things that were previously complex. In my little subculture, it's actually a virtue to not be pedantic.

A solution to a problem doesn't stop being a solution if it's simple. The only reason to be second guessing the psychology of the SAT designer is that you really don't know what the answer is supposed to be. The real world IME is not multiple choice, so you're often stuck with having to know what you're talking about.

 

[Lizard]

But that's not really the issue though. Sure, all DM's have to improvise sometimes. That's not in question here.

The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability? We're not talking about blowing an encounter or two, we're talking, by the quote in the DMG, and entire adventure.

If a single Scry blows the entire adventure, you've designed a very poor adventure. Sorry.

4e gives you, what, 30 seconds of Scry time, at level 24?

Consider this: By the time your players are level 24, you have DMed them through a LOT of adventures. (A newbie DM starting a high-level campaign is, quite simply, a moron.) You should have learned by now how to improvise. I am having a hard time thinking about how 30 seconds of scrying can "destroy" an entire adventure. (Even when we got scry in 3.5, it rarely helped. First, we almost never knew what the person we wanted looked like. Second, our DM was fond of scrying guard spells that would Feeblemind you. Thrid, scrying was a violation of local law, and doing so in the bounds of the city would be Highly Problematic. So if we knew who we wanted to scry on, we had to be VERY cautious they wouldn't detect us and report us, and if our target was remote, we usually had nothing but rumors to go on, not enough to get a "fix". Usually, scrying was something we bluebooked -- i.e, "I will spend a week trying to scry on the BBEG, let me know if I get anything but a migraine for my troubles.")

I understand the point of the advice -- don't let a single spell upend everything -- but, really, the advice should be focused on "How to improvise something new when that happens", not "How to lock down your players".

 

[Hussar]

If a single Scry blows the entire adventure, you've designed a very poor adventure. Sorry.

4e gives you, what, 30 seconds of Scry time, at level 24?

Consider this: By the time your players are level 24, you have DMed them through a LOT of adventures. (A newbie DM starting a high-level campaign is, quite simply, a moron.) You should have learned by now how to improvise. I am having a hard time thinking about how 30 seconds of scrying can "destroy" an entire adventure. (Even when we got scry in 3.5, it rarely helped. First, we almost never knew what the person we wanted looked like. Second, our DM was fond of scrying guard spells that would Feeblemind you. Thrid, scrying was a violation of local law, and doing so in the bounds of the city would be Highly Problematic. So if we knew who we wanted to scry on, we had to be VERY cautious they wouldn't detect us and report us, and if our target was remote, we usually had nothing but rumors to go on, not enough to get a "fix". Usually, scrying was something we bluebooked -- i.e, "I will spend a week trying to scry on the BBEG, let me know if I get anything but a migraine for my troubles.")

I understand the point of the advice -- don't let a single spell upend everything -- but, really, the advice should be focused on "How to improvise something new when that happens", not "How to lock down your players".

Oh, fair enough. Then again, if you turn the page, you get a nice spread on exactly how to "wing it" as well. So, it's not like this is left in a vacuum with nothing around it.

That's the problem with Gizmo's quote. He's pulled it completely out of context and ignored everything that comes before and after. For two pages before the quote, the DMG spends a great deal of time making sure that a new DM will absolutely be forthcoming with information that is necessary, and gives a number of techniques with which to pass information along to the players. The next couple of pages talk about what happens and what to do when the players do take a sharp left turn.

You're absolutely right. An adventure that would be ruined by a Scry ritual is probably a pretty poor adventure in its own right anyway. I almost wonder if Wyatt knew the duration of Scry in 4e when he wrote the advice.

Rel commented that he would like to see advice on what to do when the players jump outside of the planned adventure. Well, that's on the next page.

In other words, this advice should never really come up in the first place. And, again, note, he doesn't say "Do this, it's the best answer". He says, "You'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed..." In other words, he is empowering the DM to have some control over the game.

Not absolute power, not "tyrant" power. Extremely limited, one shot, when it's absolutely needed power. When something you didn't expect comes up, it's ok to say no sometimes. Not all the time.

In Neuronphaser's example of breaking the gem to release the trapped creature, would anyone say that he would be absolutely wrong if he said, "You break the gem and the creature inside dies."?

Boring? Quite possibly. Not the best answer, most definitely. But wrong? I don't think so.

 

[Mallus]

There's nothing offensive about that passage in the DMG. It's sound advice.

First off, context is important. The passage is question is preceded by several paragraphs stating the importance of DM transparency (tell players when a foe is bloodied, emphasize environmental details that points to hazards/traps). It's followed by an entire section on improvising.

The whole passage boils down to: don't let divination spells ruin your adventure. It includes a warning that you shouldn't design your adventures in such a way so that can happen. Basically, this is additional advice for when the DM designs an adventure poorly, kinda like last-minute saving-the-recipe advice that some cookbooks include. I suppose that could have been made more clear, but it seemed fairly obvious to me.

What's wrong with that DMG passage again??

 

[Imaro]

But that's not really the issue though. Sure, all DM's have to improvise sometimes. That's not in question here.

The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability? We're not talking about blowing an encounter or two, we're talking, by the quote in the DMG, and entire adventure.

Uhm…yes, now let me also say that I don’t believe any adventure can be totally ruined by something like this. The encounters, traps, etc. can all be adjusted, reused, re-skinned or tweaked and still be presented to the PC’s in a different context…IMHO of course.

Gizmo appears stuck on the idea that the DM is lying and cheating. Yet, if the DM has absolute control over the game world, then how is he cheating. He states that the spell did not work because the description the players gave was not thorough enough. That's working within the letter of the rules. The spell does state that you have to be very specific.

Ok, the DM does have (in most cases) absolute control over the game world…yet he also has certain responsibilities with regards to his players and their knowledge in interacting with said world. If he’s arbitrarily stating a certain description is not adequate… yet the PC and in fact everyone at the table feels it was adequate enough, it can have certain ramifications…one, that the spell is now not considered to be worth it to anyone once they realize it has to be more exact than what they believed, and thus it is not used (so you should have just eliminated it anyway.), even though the DM may have felt it was adequate and was just unprepared. Or another PC could later give an even less adequate description, but because the DM is prepared he succeeds, but now the PC who failed feels he is being picked on…or worse, players start to feel less trust and cohesion in the DM’s rulings.

Is it the best solution? Nope. Not by a long shot. The best solution would be for the DM to be able to extemporize an entire session out of his head and make it interesting for the entire group. That would be absolutely fantastic if everyone could pull it off.

Unfortunately, most of us can't. Sure, we all might have that one or two session that we pulled everything out of our hat and everything worked great. I'm also absolutely sure that we've all tried it and fallen flat on our faces.

Or the DM (if he’s not good at improvisation) could, you know…actually talk to his players and tell the truth, I mean as a player I would have much more respect for a DM who owns up and states he wasn’t expecting something than one who lies and places the blame on me. It also helps avoid the problems I cited in the answer to your question above.

Remember, the quote is not saying "do this every time to keep the players on your tightly scripted tracks". That is absolutely not what it's saying. What it IS saying is, "if, despite reading this advice, you choose to ignore all of it, and screw up and forget about some ability your PC's have, then you have the power as DM to nerf that ability". Note it does not say that you should do this. It ONLY says that you have the authority to do so.

And it really shouldn’t state this…it’s akin to saying in the end you really have the right to do what you want in the name of preserving what you as DM believe would be the most fun for the entire group… regardless of what the others might think is the most fun, oh yeah and it’s ok to the blame the player…if it helps you preserve “fun” (how fun is it for that player though?). Sorry, just not good advice.

Is anyone actually challenging what's written here, rather than what people seem to think is written here?

And are you defending what you are interpreting? Numerous people have read your entire quote posting…and in the end felt it was still bad advice…I haven’t seen you state why it’s better than the other alternatives offered by others.

Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?

I think he doesn’t have the “right” to set up expectations and rules that define how the PC’s are able to interact with the world…and then arbitrarily change them, and instead of being honest about it…claim the PC’s interpretation of those expectations were wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The whole passage boils down to: don't let divination spells ruin your adventure.

There are three ways to absolutely avoid divination spells from ruining your adventure that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Don't have divinations spells.

2. Don't be so married to your vision of how your adventure is supposed to play out that the players gaining additional information ruins it.

3. Nerf 'em when you think they'll ruin your adventure.

What's wrong with that DMG passage again??

Of the three choices above, 1 & 2 are perfectly acceptable, IMHO, whereas 3 is never acceptable. Suggesting 3, even in context of other advice, is never acceptable.


RC

 

[Mean DM]

The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?

Yes. Player's abilities, intellegence, or sheer luck should always trump a GM's plans IMO. Don't rob a player when your creativity is out-maneuvered by his brilliance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Player's abilities, intellegence, or sheer luck should always trump a GM's plans IMO. Don't rob a player when your creativity is out-maneuvered by his brilliance.

This.

Absolutely this.

And +XP to you!


RC

 

[gizmo33]

Gizmo appears stuck on the idea that the DM is lying and cheating. Yet, if the DM has absolute control over the game world, then how is he cheating. He states that the spell did not work because the description the players gave was not thorough enough. That's working within the letter of the rules. The spell does state that you have to be very specific.

Are you "stuck" on the idea that I'm stuck on the idea? Maybe I just *have an idea*. Maybe what some of you are saying to counter the idea that I'm "stuck on" is not very convincing. The above statement is an example. And here's why:

First of all there is some question about how absolute the DMs control is. There's no statement in the Players Handbook that says if the player rolls a 20, and the DM doesn't like it, he can declare that the player didn't roll a 20. And what happen to the (rather unconvincing) statements in the DMG that say that the players are supposed to contribute to the game? It's all well and good I guess as long as the player's contributions mimmic what the DM would have done anyway. That's not contribution - and IME people who are of equivalent intelligence and maturity are quickly going to detect the con.

And strictly speaking, you're not working within the letter of the rules. You did not fail the Observe Creature ritual because of it's lack of specificity. Again, if your players aren't stupid and you've used this ritual, or any ritual or spell like it and with similar requirements in the past, the players are going to be in a pretty good position to compare your previous rulings with this one, and they're going to call shennanigans for good reason.

And you're going to be insulting their intelligence, and hurting your own integrity, by claiming to make the judgement based on the facts of the game when you're really only failing the spell to protect your plot.

Worse, if you actually talk yourself into the rationalization that your decision was based on the "letter of the rules", the player's aren't going to suddenly forget your previous rulings, and it will be obvious to them that, at best, the DM is also not being honest with himself.

Is it the best solution? Nope. Not by a long shot. The best solution would be for the DM to be able to extemporize an entire session out of his head and make it interesting for the entire group. That would be absolutely fantastic if everyone could pull it off.

Unfortunately, most of us can't. Sure, we all might have that one or two session that we pulled everything out of our hat and everything worked great. I'm also absolutely sure that we've all tried it and fallen flat on our faces.

What are you describing, figure skating? The 4E DMG describes player motivations on page 8+. What you're saying just doesn't seem to take into account thinking, motivated players on the other side of the screen. Plus, anyone who casts Observe Creature and expects it to work is probably going to consider the DM as having fallen flat when he starts nerfing rituals willy-nilly. There's a large spectrum of enjoyment worth considering that lies between the two extremes.

Remember, the quote is not saying "do this every time to keep the players on your tightly scripted tracks". That is absolutely not what it's saying. What it IS saying is, "if, despite reading this advice, you choose to ignore all of it, and screw up and forget about some ability your PC's have, then you have the power as DM to nerf that ability". Note it does not say that you should do this. It ONLY says that you have the authority to do so.

Then say it in the PHB. Say it to your players. If it's such a *right*, then why is the DMing lying to his players about it?

And the statement says "If conditions A apply, then do B." If I see conditions A as being pretty common in the game, then it's fair for me to conclude that the DM is being told to do B pretty often. It doesn't need to be said explicitly, it's a reasonable interpretation. If you're suggesting that the conditions set forth in the DMG I quoted aren't common, then that itself is arguable.

Is anyone actually challenging what's written here, rather than what people seem to think is written here?

Well all writing has to be interpreted. Are you so sure that your interpretation is the right one that you're stating that without proof? What's *actually* written there is that the DM is going to lie to the player about a ruling.

Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?

It's not a ruling actually. That word "ruling" stems from an implied set of "rules" that require interpretation. Deciding to do whatever I feel like doing and telling everyone else they have to go along with it is not a "ruling". Unless my word is law - in which case the Core Rules of DnD could be A LOT shorter.

And this isn't "time to time". That's equivocation that masks what's really going on. Observe Creature is an important and expensive ritual. And the event that it's impacting is at the core of the DMs adventure. Both player and DM consider this a very important event in the context of what was written. This is not a case of the player taking either 7 or 8 points of damage. So "time to time" is not a really good-faith assessment of the situation.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Unless my word is law - in which case the Core Rules of DnD could be A LOT shorter.

I think you're on to something there.

 

[gizmo33]

That's the problem with Gizmo's quote. He's pulled it completely out of context and ignored everything that comes before and after. For two pages before the quote, the DMG spends a great deal of time making sure that a new DM will absolutely be forthcoming with information that is necessary, and gives a number of techniques with which to pass information along to the players. The next couple of pages talk about what happens and what to do when the players do take a sharp left turn.

No "context" does not mean that I can give a speech standing next to a dictionary and every time I say something foolish I can then pull out the dictionary and then claim that there was other stuff I was about to say that invalidated it. That's becoming a very old trick. The author establishes the conditions, and then suggests the solution. The proximity of these other statements is irrelevant. That information is never referenced. It's not part of the context of the statement.

I've already been clear about what the DMG is trying to say in that section, and it has nothing to do with these other sections your talking about. HAD Wyatt (assuming he authored all of this) actually taken seriously his advice on improvising, delegating, the different player motivations, paying attention, and so on then it would have RENDERED MEANINGLESS the statement about "short circuiting" the "whole adventure." How is it possible to "render a whole adventure meaningless" given that the definition of a successful campaign includes this myriad of elements. And many of those elements are player dependant - but this isn't recognized, seemingly, by many of the advocates of the "lie to the player" approach. You scratch the surface IMO, and find that the DM has been this secret Prima Donna this whole time, and the con that he gets the players to get involved in his story is based on an illusion (not well maintained) that they are playing a game. For example:

page 33: "The Core Mechanic: Explain the core mechanic of the game: Make a check and compare it to a defense."

No - that's not the core mechanic apparently. The core mechanic in the game is that stuff happens when it suits the DMs plot. You only roll dice when the outcome doesn't change this fundemental framework established by the DM.

A plot, AFAICT is just a series of the most interesting and important events in a story. If you have an attitude, as a DM, that the plot is 100% within your control, then it seems to me that what you're really saying is that the players - through their decisions, luck, or whatever, have no control over any of the real interesting parts of the game. They can control whether or not they kill the monsters in 4 or 7 rounds, I suppose.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No "context" does not mean that I can give a speech standing next to a dictionary and every time I say something foolish I can then pull out the dictionary and then claim that there was other stuff I was about to say that invalidated it. That's becoming a very old trick. The author establishes the conditions, and then suggests the solution. The proximity of these other statements is irrelevant. That information is never referenced. It's not part of the context of the statement.

Indeed.

If the context were important, one would think that one could make a specific statement that shows exactly how the context changes the meaning of the bit quoted.

"Fish spawn in the river. By fish, I mean salmon." The second sentence provides important context to the first.

"Fish spawn in the river. Spiders are found in the barn." The second sentence provides no context to the first.

"Fish spawn in the river. After spawning, the fish go downriver to the lake." Again, the second sentence provides no context to the first, even though they are about the same fish.

For the record, I would not be interested in playing in the campaign of any DM who told me, upfront, that they thought the bit Gizmo33 quoted was a good idea. And I would be out of the game as soon as I realized that whatever clever ideas I might have to overcome the difficulties presented to me were going to be nerfed if the DM decided they "ruined his plot".

I would exit politely and respectfully, but I would exit quickly.


RC

 

[Rel]

gizmo, I don't think this latest post is helping your argument very much.

 

[rjdafoe]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that alot of the people agrueing against the "advice" (It is not really advice, the way I look at it, it is an example. A big difference.) is that if this were 3.5 and it the quote was replaced by something like:

"It is the DMs right to rule 0 the result." Everyone would (most likly) be fine with it. That is what the passage is saying, no matter how much you want to argue and rally against it.

It says, if you are in a pickle, make the spell do something unexpected. There is no advice, it is an example and a solution. There are alot of people that have come from groups in the 3.5 era where nothing was in the DM's control. There could not be made up spells that the villians used. They HAD to be in the PHB's rule for everthing. What the example provides is a DM has a right to say that it doesn't work (for whatever reason.)

I think people are getting hung up on the reason it doesn't work and are taking it is advice. It is not advice, it is an example, and at worst, a bad example. In no way does it say that every single time, do this.

Context DOES matter, no matter how much you want to argue that it doesn't matter.

 

[gizmo33]

There's nothing offensive about that passage in the DMG. It's sound advice.

Lying to the players is offensive and not sound IMO, and something that some of you IMO need to address head on instead of pretending it's not there.

First off, context is important. The passage is question is preceded by several paragraphs stating the importance of DM transparency (tell players when a foe is bloodied, emphasize environmental details that points to hazards/traps). It's followed by an entire section on improvising.

Well if context is so important then why was it ignored by the very passge I quoted in the OP? And if you actually APPLIED the advice that you claim to be the context for this passage, then how can you not see the advice for what it is? It basically contradicts any of the other good bits of information in those other sections.

For example, you have an opportunity to actually DEMONSTRATE this transparency that you're advocating, but when it actually counts, you lie to the player? You have an opportunity to have a players action dictate an actual major advance of the plot and you nerf that action?

When it really matters, you don't actually follow through. All of that other advice in the other sections is just lip-service. "You're business is important to us, please stay on the line." Saying it doesn't make it true. An actual chance for the DM to demonstrate some use for the advice given earlier and some respect for the players and their input and he fails.

And much of this is a matter of what I call "good faith". It means be honest with yourself about your motives. You start making dishonest excuses to the players, coached by passages in the DMG like "And remember that villains can use rituals to protect themselves as well..." All fine and good except that his passage was given *after* the solution was already presented. Which makes it read in *context* like a dishonest rationalization for a ruling based on protecting the plot. Don't bother with pseudo-simulationist excuses for things that aren't honest. You might get away with it for some time, but your peers aren't dumber than you are and they're going to see through this in short order. People worth playing the game with are not worth treating this way.

The whole passage boils down to: don't let divination spells ruin your adventure. It includes a warning that you shouldn't design your adventures in such a way so that can happen. Basically, this is additional advice for when the DM designs an adventure poorly, kinda like last-minute saving-the-recipe advice that some cookbooks include. I suppose that could have been made more clear, but it seemed fairly obvious to me.

What's wrong with that DMG passage again??

Read it. It doesn't actually show you *how* to design an adventure not to be vulnerable to Observe Creature. This would be very useful for the supposed "beginning DMs" that are the target audience.

Secondly, it advises that the DM completely disregard the input of the player under a set of circumstances that seem potentially very common (esp. at 24th level) - after spending all of this time explaining different player types and how to accept their input.

Thirdly, it advises you to lie to the players about the nature of the game and your rulings.

 

[La Bete]

I think a better piece of overall advice would be this:

DM's, don't be too attached to your plans.

Oddly enough, the DMG pretty much states this on page 98 - subheading "Let it go and move on".

(I skimmed over much of the usual stuff in the thread - probably someone already posted this... )

 

[gizmo33]

gizmo, I don't think this latest post is helping your argument very much.

I don't know what argument you're referring to. There are many lines of reasoning that have been introduced here. To people that don't agree with me *none* of my statements are helping my argument, are they? Maybe you can be specific about what points you take issue with. I can't be sure that I've explained everything correctly, that all of my ideas are correct, or that you're reading what I've written correctly. Any input from you about what's missing would help.

 

[rjdafoe]

"No - that's not the core mechanic apparently. The core mechanic in the game is that stuff happens when it suits the DMs plot. You only roll dice when the outcome doesn't change this fundemental framework established by the DM."

What does the above mean, if you do not have context to this message thread?

 

[Rel]

I don't know what argument you're referring to. There are many lines of reasoning that have been introduced here. To people that don't agree with me *none* of my statements are helping my argument, are they? Maybe you can be specific about what points you take issue with. I can't be sure that I've explained everything correctly, that all of my ideas are correct, or that you're reading what I've written correctly. Any input from you about what's missing would help.

Sorry I was vague. I don't think that people saying "there is other information that provides some context" invalidates your issues with the passage quoted in the OP. But I do think that it provides basis for a larger point that the 4e DMG provides some very good, if not flawless, advice for DM's in general and new DM's in particular.

page 33: "The Core Mechanic: Explain the core mechanic of the game: Make a check and compare it to a defense."

No - that's not the core mechanic apparently. The core mechanic in the game is that stuff happens when it suits the DMs plot. You only roll dice when the outcome doesn't change this fundemental framework established by the DM.

This in particular struck me as an unfair characterization if your intent is to link the interpretation to the bothersome bit in the OP.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry I was vague. I don't think that people saying "there is other information that provides some context" invalidates your issues with the passage quoted in the OP. But I do think that it provides basis for a larger point that the 4e DMG provides some very good, if not flawless, advice for DM's in general and new DM's in particular.

Maybe I missed it, but AFAICT, Gizmo33 isn't arguing that there is not some very good advice in the 4e DMG, but rather that there is also some very bad advice in there.


RC