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

[Remathilis]

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.

Because its easier to compare things when they are mutually exclusive rather than a slide-scale?

Seriously, most DMs would still work things into the plot to make most of their work go on as normal. Both are extremes pulled out for the sake of comparison. And as I said, most groups (by means of compromise) end up closer to the middle than to either side.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

I totally agree with this. I would never suggest that the DM always screw the effects of scrying. Just ban the spell if that's going to be the case.

I am really only talking about the one time that a new (or experienced) DM runs into this and doesn't know what to do or how to make it so their long hours of work isn't wasted. Yes, it's poor (or just inexperienced) planning on the DMs part, but I see nothing wrong with fudging a die roll (the perception check) and then making sure that its planned for in the future.

Admittedly, at 24th level, there's just too much for a DM to try to anticipate in his planning and sometimes it's important to go with the flow.

Some players will find a "solution" to problems and then abuse it to the n-th degree. If the players were relying on the scry as a crutch, then I would make it not work correctly once or twice to encourage other ways of solving problems.

One problem with the original post was the implication (via the title) that this was one of a thousand reasons why the 4e DMG sucks. No one seems to be discussing this. We (me included) are too busy hyper-analyzing one poorly worded sentence or two.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

A very good point, but one that is often lost on new DMs. I think the advice (repeating the mantra: while poorly written) helps the newbie DM with that one time where his preparation time isn't wasted.

Granted a new DM should probably NOT be running an epic level game in the first place, at least until there's some experience under his/her belt.

 

[Rel]

Speaking of the broader topic of fudging or not I'm on both sides of the fence as they say.

I roll in the open and so do my players. Many of us (always me) have those big dice with easy to read numbers so things pretty much fall as they may and we all live with the consequences and fun that results. I wouldn't run a game otherwise because the randomness and chaos introduced by the dice is what turns the game from a "determine what will happen and watch it unfold" and "set up a situation and discover what happens". And that's a big reason that I like to run games.

On the other hand, I'm not above a bit of fudging on the back end. I try to plan for the game to be awesome. However sometimes I discover as things are unfolding that it could be MORE awesome if I'd planned a little different. And so I adjust the plan on the fly to add that touch of awesome. In other words, my game is not pre-programmed to generate a given output with a given input. I am there to make adjustments.

I'll give a quick example: I ran this combat with a big critter that would swallow people whole and had a symbiotic relationship with these giant bats it would hatch out that would then go grab people to drop into its mouth for swallowing. Most of the way through the battle the party had downed nearly all the bats and I could tell that it was going to be a bit of a slugfest with them grinding down the big critter's (considerable) hit points. Just then I got an inspiration that I should let it hatch out another bat because it had just eaten somebody (a hapless NPC shepherd). In 4e terms I decided that this was basically a power that recharged upon a specific condition (eating somebody). The bat hatching out would provide another threat for them to target besides the big bad and also show them that these bats were a product of the creature itself, giving them some information they didn't already have. So I did that. Rather sizable fudge but it made the battle more interesting and dynamic. I'm not sorry I did it.

I also fudge in another way that I'll call a "big picture fudge". I'm a pretty smart guy. But I'm just one guy. And my players are all smart too and they've got me outnumbered. This doesn't mean that when they come up with a cool idea that I squash it. It means that when they come up with a cool idea I steal it!

When they suddenly say, "Hey! Because of evidence X, Y and Z, I'll just bet that Evil Organization A is in cahoots with Evil Organization B!" then I'm suddenly going "Holy crap! That's brilliant!" Suddenly I'm weaving this idea into the ongoing plot and things just got that much better.

This doesn't mean that my game world has no internal consistancy. As a matter of fact, I require that it does. But internal consistancy doesn't mean being chained to what you have thought of. Internal consistancy means I adhere to what has been established. As long as I keep that intact then I feel free to change stuff around in the background to generate maximum awesome as often as possible.

I don't pretend that this is the one true way. But it works for me and it lets me use my creativity not only to weave an interesting game from my ideas but also to weave in threads inadvertantly offered up by my players until we have a rug that really ties the campaign together.

 

[FireLance]

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

I don't think this is the actual value judgment here. "Game" seems to imply that one choice is fun and the other is not, while "story" seems to imply that one choice is scripted and the other is not.

It doesn't look to me like a choice between "fun" and "scripted". It looks more to me like a choice between the strict application of the game rules, and the players' enjoyment of a single session.

I am sure that there are quite a few DMs who will be in favor of always strictly applying the game rules, because they feel that such internal consistency is conducive to the players' long-term enjoyment of the game. I am equally sure that there will be other DMs who will be prepared to ignore or fudge the rules, especially if they can do so in a way that will not be obvious to the players, in order to add complications which they feel will make the session more interesting for them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, Derren and Raven Crowking, do either of you believe that the DM should ever fudge dice in the favor of the players? Or fudge dice at all?

The DM should not. IMHO. Ever.

Or is your preferred DM-style roll-in-front, let the dice fall where they may? Not that either is better or worse, just different.

Not generally, because doing so can grant players information that their characters should not have.

One other question, have either of you ever modified the effects of the players' actions to move the story forward (or add to the narrative tension, or direct them down a path, or for any reason?)

Can you ask this question more specifically? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

DM's, don't be too attached to your plans. Players can and will foil them in a variety of interesting ways that we can't possibly take into account in these rulebooks. Flexibility is key, because robbing a player of a power that they have every reason to believe they can use is one of the quickest ways to loose player trust there is.

Here are a series of common improvisational tools you can use when your players catch you off guard:

<blahblahblah>

Guidelines like "when in doubt, throw in a combat," or "you discover that the trouble runs deeper," or "flight doesn't mean you can't be hit," "don't bottleneck," "always have more options than they can pursue," and "maintain forward momentum -- you can't go back!" might be useful guidelines here.

Because seriously, DM's: Don't be too attached to your plans. It is, in essense, the players' job to screw with them. And it's your job to have a bag of tricks that can respond to the inevitable situation when the players use an option you overlooked to solve a problem that you thought was going to be so much cooler.

Anything else is railroading, to a certain degree.

Not that that level of railroading is always a problem, just that it should always be avoided because sooner or later it is a problem.

 

[catsclaw227]

The DM should not. IMHO. Ever.

And this is a place where our DM styles diverge. (and you have never fudged a roll made behind the screen? NEVER? Wow... that takes some self-control.)

Not generally, because doing so can grant players information that their characters should not have.

In this case, I meant rolls like combat attacks, etc. Not rolls like search or perception that should be done behind the screen so as not to tip off the players unnecessarily.

Can you ask this question more specifically? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

Well, I suppose a couple of things. For example, a roll done behind the screen. Have you ever fudged the roll so that it works or doesn't work in the player's favor?

Or maybe There's a plan the players concoct or a spell/ritual that they want to use. In using it or the players or PCs might be making a bad mistake or it could send them in a direction that isn't conducive to game play.

For example, a player is sitting out because his PC was captured, they are trying to find him. They use a spell or make a plan that would send them in the opposite direction, and the player would likely sit out another hour or so while the PCs bumble around. Instead, off the cuff, you place an NPC or something that nudges them in the right direction so that the player might join the game again.

these are just some (of possibly many) examples where I would modify the effects of the players' actions to move the story forward.

I think this might have to do with some of the DMing paradigm differences. I am guessing - and trying to remember from previous posts - that you are a sandbox style DM.

I don't have the time to build a sandbox campaign the way I would want to, so I run slightly modified prepublished adventures, lately APs. If the players miss the hidden door that holds the Thingy of Some Notable Importance, or their search rolls come up sucky, then I have been known to fudge a bit, and give them a bite so that they either find another clue, or search more thoroughly.

Gaming time is precious for me, so I would rather not sit through hours of backtracking, searching every corridor and room only to find that the secret compartment was in the room they searched two hours ago.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

DM's, don't be too attached to your plans. Players can and will foil them in a variety of interesting ways that we can't possibly take into account in these rulebooks. Flexibility is key, because robbing a player of a power that they have every reason to believe they can use is one of the quickest ways to loose player trust there is.

(snip)

Anything else is railroading, to a certain degree.

Best response I've heard so far. So like, This, QFT, win, all that.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, I'm not saying that this is Shakespeare and the greatest advice ever. My point is that Gizmo has pulled a single quote out of context, and then tried to paint this as general advice that DM's should do ever single time.

It's not. It's a last moment, "Ah crap" sort of thing that should only ever happen once. If you've actually followed the advice on the previous TWO PAGES of the DMG, then it shouldn't happen at all.

However, there are times when we forget stuff like this. I know that I do. "What do you mean you scry? You can do that? Oh, right, you got that book five sessions ago and now is the first time you're going to use it... ummm... "

In other words, the DM's dropped the ball. Now you have three choices: allow the effect/plan to work and chuck out your adventure (because it's RIGHT THERE in the quote that following the effect/plan will short circuit and ENTIRE ADVENTURE) ; allow the effect to work and try to ad hoc an entire session's worth of material and still chuck out (or maybe salvage some of) your adventure; or this one time only nerf the effect and carry on as planned.

It's funny the level of player entitlement we're seeing from Gizmo, Raven Crowking and others considering how vehemently they argue against anything which impinges on DM's authority. Here, we're being told that, no matter what, because the rule books say so, the DM MUST CAVE. The DM HAS NO AUTHORITY to change the rules or effects. It is VERBOTTEN that the DM change or alter any effect or power the player has.

Irony tastes sweet.