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

[catsclaw227]

I would say No.

IMHO, the DM should not be planning out how the encounter will go so stringently that the PCs cannot take actions within their means and powers. If a PC has the ability to X, the PC should get to X, no matter what that does to the DM's expected encounter.

To be fair, in my example, it was a DM determining the outcome of the ritual, within the fair means of the ritual.

A DM cannot know when or if the players will use a scry ritual, so therefore the immediate result of the scry is almost always done off the cuff, unless the DM has a second-by-second planner with the NPC actions spelled out. After all, Observe Creature is only 1-5 rounds long.

If the DM decides that there's another NPC or summoned monster or sister or lover or handmaiden in the room, it's perfectly acceptable. And if either NPC in the room can make a perception check of 10+level of caster, then it's COMPLETELY valid. Heck a 25th level Cleric NPC, per the DMG guidelines, can have a +23 Perception so they only need to roll an 11 to catch a 24th level PCs sensor.

Adjudicating a scry can be tricky, even for an experienced DM, but especially for a new DM.

 

[Ahglock]

i agree with Rel, with one caveat:

Using a 'Locate Person' isn't a brilliant idea. If there is one thing I have come to hate, it is the 'solving the plot by thumbing through the Spell Compendium and buying a scroll' method.

I pretty much agree with everything the OP said, but not in the way he said it. It's important to remember that we are a community here , and try not to mix well-founded criticism with personal attacks.

Ken

While it is not brilliant, using your abilities effectively is intelligent. And I did not find anything in the OPs post insulting or a personal attack. He just said coming up with bad lies and blaming in on the PCs wont work on adults. I fail to see how that is insulting to Wyatt. I think people are trying to find an insult where there isn't one.

 

[Imaro]

Imaro -- What if the text from the DMG had said something like this (my change in yellow):



Would this be better? [Ignore any grammatical issues, it was off the cuff without an editor. ]

I wonder if this is closer to the intent of the advice.

IMHO, no... if this ritual was made freely available and able to be cast by all... maybe, but in assuming that a player has expended resources to attain it, I don't think it's fair to have a purely arbitrary... it doesn't work switch.

IMHO, there are two ways a ritual like you described turns out... either the DM allows it to work without arbitrary moments of "surprise you just wasted time with no payoff!" and he learns to cope with scry in his campaign or...

He uses the arbitrary switch and his players, more than likely get frustrated by what amounts to a totally unreliable resource that is dependent upon the mood and preparation of the DM. Leading to them rarely using or abandoning the ritual...

Now the question is if it works like this why not just let individual DM's rule whether they want or don't want this type of scrying spell. Either you want it to be a resource and your PC's can use it...or you don't, neither of these is wrong... but the I'll just rule when I want it to work and when I don't makes it a plot device...not a PC resource.

 

[Remathilis]

No. The problem is not the method how the DM screws the players, the problem is that he does so at all.

You gotta be a great DM to cast Wish around...

 

[Ahglock]

By the way is there a cheaper way to avoid scrying during your clandestine meeting or other short time event than rope trick?

 

[Ahglock]

You gotta be a great DM to cast Wish around...

I'd say there is a difference with wish though. Wish explicitly said in its power description if you ask for more than this you will be screwed with. In this case you are asking for scry to do what it explicitly says it will and should do. And then the DM still screws with you. Scry is a moronically expensive ritual to learn and then cast and you only see the guy for like 30 seconds. You got to be an awesome DM to say tough nuggies you did everything right but nahya no scry for you.

 

[Imaro]

To be fair, in my example, it was a DM determining the outcome of the ritual, within the fair means of the ritual.

A DM cannot know when or if the players will use a scry ritual, so therefore the immediate result of the scry is almost always done off the cuff, unless the DM has a second-by-second planner with the NPC actions spelled out. After all, Observe Creature is only 1-5 rounds long.

If the DM decides that there's another NPC or summoned monster or sister or lover or handmaiden in the room, it's perfectly acceptable. And if either NPC in the room can make a perception check of 10+level of caster, then it's COMPLETELY valid. Heck a 25th level Cleric NPC, per the DMG guidelines, can have a +23 Perception so they only need to roll an 11 to catch a 24th level PCs sensor.

Adjudicating a scry can be tricky, even for an experienced DM, but especially for a new DM.

First let me say I have both fudged in certain campaigns and played it by the numbers... the key, IMHO, is to let my players know upfront which one it will be and thus they are not confused about the expectations they should have for the game.

The above quote added a perception check, which actually has a chance of failing and thus is different from what the DMG says or what you posted originally...would this be acceptable to me, sure as long as the PC's knew that was how the ritual worked and it was reduced in level, cost, etc. to reflect that. Now, if I am having a NPC spot the sensor everytime they try to use the ritual, then I would expect my player to become frustrated (It's the whole Ranger enemy that never appears scenario). Also I don't believe this would be fun for the group (not just the DM), again it's a resource and the PC rightfully wants it to be worth the effort he has invested into it.

 

[Phaezen]

I think the essence of the piece being quoted is solid DMing advice.

To be fair, and completely honest *tm* I fudge all the time when I DM if I believe it willimprove the game experience for the players. Scrying might be the easy way to get information, and I might give them one or two leads that they can use to get more imformation through mundane means (contacts, rumor mongering, buying information, research and whatnot). I even fudge npc hitpoints in fights to extend or shorten them as needed to create tension or end a dull fight.

Just about every DM I have played under in the last 22 years I have been roleplaying has done the same.

It is one of the advantages of playing a traditional pen and paper rpg that the DM can read the mood of the players at the table and adjust the game accordingly. If the DM feels that the particular use of a spell or ritual will destroy the atmosphere of a session then it is not only his right, but his duty to rule that it fails for a particular reason, whether it be that the character was not specific enough in his description or that the opponent had some counter measures in place.

Sometimes I get the feeling that many players feel that the DM is there to act like a computer and run the game rules as if they are a programme, not to tell a story with them. Likewise some DMs don't treat players as participants in a living story. We must all realise that we are all playing to tell a story.

Sometimes the Dm just needs to make a difficult call and disallow or circumvent a players action to keep a game going or prevent a plot arch from being resolver too quickly.

Phaezen (I hope I made some kind of point in that ramble)

 

[Remathilis]

The problem I have with the 4E quote is partially that the DMG is taking an explicit stand and endorsing the latter method of play, according to the personal preferences of the designers. I am not really surprised; it's in keeping with the move against simulationism that has been present in a lot of 4E.

Which comes back to the value judgment of which takes precedence; the game or the story?

If the former, the DM is clearly in the wrong to cheat the PC out of any of his hard-earned (or even not-so-hard-earned) gains. If he solves the murder by casting speak with dead, scrys on the killer, and zone-of-truth's him into confession, then that is how the murder is solved, be damned if you had intentions of a guild-war, the assassination of an arch-duke, and a really-cool barfight for the fighter to get into. PCs win, now where's that XP?

If the latter, then you are completely justified in taking reasonable measures to thwart skipping to the last chapter of the book by casting 1-3 spells. While no DM should be heavy-handed and force one-and-only-one method of solving a puzzle, if you have certain elements that must happen to make your game run (and your players are ok with this) than shorting out a ritual in the short run to save an amazing adventure planned in the long run is completely fine.

D&D over the editions has drifted from the former to the latter (actually, it waffled between them, but that's another thread). It really depends on how the group plays, and what they're (and the DM's priorities lie).

Horror stories are written when a group believes one and the DM believes the other...

 

[Alzrius]

Which comes back to the value judgment of which takes precedence; the game or the story?

If the former, the DM is clearly in the wrong to cheat the PC out of any of his hard-earned (or even not-so-hard-earned) gains. If he solves the murder by casting speak with dead, scrys on the killer, and zone-of-truth's him into confession, then that is how the murder is solved, be damned if you had intentions of a guild-war, the assassination of an arch-duke, and a really-cool barfight for the fighter to get into. PCs win, now where's that XP?

This approach presumes that the two are mutually exclusive. Why can't the DM figure out how to adjust things so that a guild war happens anyway?

I'm not suggesting that the PCs actions be irrelevant to what the DM will make happen, but rather that he lets the PCs set the route that takes them to where he'd like them to go. Admittedly, sometimes this won't happen because what the players want and what the DM wants will be extremely different, but notwithstanding those cases, there's usually a balance that can be struck between canny players and an enterprising DM.