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

[SlyFlourish]

This is an interesting topic, though the fires burn a bit hot. I think there is an interesting theoretical discussion in here somewhere: how much control over a story should the DM take?

I've been known to fudge die-rolls once in a while. I've even been caught once or twice. My group has a bad habit of second-guessing me, which is sort of a pain sometimes.

However, I believe in maintaining a loose grip on the story. For dramatic flair, I might have a BBEG last another round or two to push the party a little bit more. Also, if the party is in significant danger, I might cut them a break.

One time I did save my wife's character from being thrown into a pit (she made the mistake of putting her character on the edge of a 100' deep pit with a green dragon right there able to shove). She failed the save but one of our other characters had not yet gone, I gave him an immediate chance to go save her by burning an action point and rolling some skill checks. It worked but people knew I cheated - I should have rolled behind the screen for it.

On the other hand, it's the die-rolls and the unexpected that make D&D a shared story rather than the DM's story. You never know what the players will come up with and often it moves the story around in surprising and entertaining ways. We should embrace these changes, not fear them.

In the OP's example, perhaps it does make the story more interesting if they're able to see what the BBEG is up to. Maybe the BBEG detects their scrying and begins to lie. It is very important in games like this to build out the sandbox a bit. Ask yourself "what would BBEG be doing now while the party is handling this room full of minions?" "How did the BBEG get where he or she is?" "What do they want and how would they react to the party's interloping?"

These are very important questions that will add to the fluidity of the story as your party starts to change things. I did this very well when I ran KOTS and not so well with Thunderspire Labyrinth. I hope to fix that as we're running through Pyramid of Shadows. "What are Karavakos and his shards doing right now? What is Vyrellis thinking? What do they all want? How are they changing their behavior based on the party?" If I know this, and the PCs manage to learn something more from them, the world will seem more fluid and real.

I know it sounds hokey but I like to actually visualize myself looking through the eyes of the BBEG (long before the party may eve know who it is). "What am I doing? What do I want?" It's sort of like method-acting. You must BECOME the BBEG to truly understand he or she. It was this method that led me to the idea that Kalarel in KOTS is actually a serial killer on top of being an Orcus priest. This led the party into some CSI-style crime scene investigations before they started digging into the Keep. Now the bad guy had motivations and actions that the PCs began to understand so when they saw him, he was a lot more real than just a dude with a funny hat.

Deadwood is a great example of a story that moves organically rather than with plot. People change their behavior based on the actions of others. They have backgrounds, ambitions, and personalities - not storylines. That's how a good BBEG is.

Anyway, I think its very interesting to discuss when a DM should put his or her hand in to move the story one direction and when they should step back and let the story evolve on its own.

 

[Shadeydm]

But that's a pretty crappy piece of DM advice in my opinion.

I say that if the players muck up your plans with their brilliant ideas then let those plans fail. Let them fail GLORIOUSLY. Let the players surprise and kill that BBEG while he's got his pants down. They earned it. It will make them think you're a fair DM. It will make them feel good about the attention they pay and creativity they invest in your game. And it will allow them to forgive you for the times that you throw them up against impossible odds.

This, a thousand times this!!

 

[avin]

Let them scry and make NPCs fail if they're not prepared! NPCs are not perfect, they fail sometimes.

Part of DM's job is improvise.

 

[Derren]

Let them scry and make NPCs fail if they're not prepared! NPCs are not perfect, they fail sometimes.

Part of DM's job is improvise.

If only more DMs would realize this.

 

[Hussar]

If only more DMs would realize this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Derren]

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

Yes.
At best the DM shouldn't even have a superdetailed adventure prepared. But if he insists on doing the work anyway he should still throw it away instantly the PCs do outsmart the NPCs/him.

Even just bending the adventure is ok, but like in this example flat out nerfing a PCs ability just so that the train can stay on track is unacceptable in all circumstances.

 

[timbannock]

I've changed entire plots because players did something unexpected.

In one campaign, the PCs didn't just beat a dragon they fought, they also trapped his soul in a gem that had a magic jar kind of effect. Better yet, at the end of the campaign, against the BBEG, they pulled out that gem (which I'd forgotten about) and decided to break it, just to see what would happen.

I had no clue. So I figured it would be something disastrous to everyone, but that MAYBE someone could use to their advantage. I tossed everybody into the Astral and staged the fight there. The PCs used it to their advantage, and the BBEG went down like a schmuck. The players deserved it.

I've gone the other way, too. The players were supposed to go into a goblin city all friendly like in order to pass mostly unnoticed and use the back door to Rappan Athuk, Orcus' abode on the material world. Instead, they went in guns blazing after one of the goblins made a comment about their mothers, and the situation was a disaster. The PCs wrecked the goblins however. I needed to punish the players for being so "kick in the door" about the situation, but honestly, they beat the goblins fair and square.

But I thought to myself: "these are guards to the goblin city gates. They have to check in every so often, change shifts, etc." Therefore, using a second level spell (Status, maybe?) cast on the goblin sergeants who were stationed at the gate, I made it so the goblin shamans were aware that somebody killed the gate guards. When the PCs went into the goblin city, the whole place was on high alert. The PCs -- obviously not the subtle type -- didn't hide their holy symbols and such, and so the goblins figured it was these do-gooders.

The players got royally borked after that point. 25 goblin gate guards vs. some tough, level 13 PCs? Narry a sweat was broken. But a goblin city of thousands of goblins, including higher level shamans and chieftain w/ bodyguards? The PCs were doomed.

Anyway, both situations ended WAY different than I would have thought. One of the key things I took away from it was being able to stop game for a few minutes ("You guys wanna go have a smoke while I make some notes?") and think logically about the situation, and then consider what would be most dramatically appropriate.

I've never said "No, that doesn't work." I have made it not the optimal choice, because their is ALWAYS a counter-method, or a way to trace something back to its source.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.)

Oh, no. Not at all. The 2nd Ed DMG actively encouraged this sort of fudging, and, believing the reasoning of the game designers, I tried it. Worst advice ever. It didn't take the players long at all to realize what had changed, and it was a campaign ruiner. Never again.

I've given in to the impulse, and regretted it deeply.

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.

Ah, but what if there is something unusual about the combat? For instance, let's say that the PCs are fighting an illusionary creature which will simply never hit them -- no matter what -- and can seemingly absorb an infinite amount of damage?

What if I don't want them to know that the orc can only hit them on a 15 or higher, so that they have to guage their reactions by description? So, if the first attack roll was, say, a 20, I can say "The orc bypasses your defenses easily" and the players don't know right away if it was luck or skill.

If a lot hangs on a single die roll, though, that roll is made in the open. It is more important that the player can trust the dice/me the DM than it is to keep a strict divide between player and character knowledge.

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?

See above, re: 2nd Edition. Never again.

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.

IMHO, and IME, allowing the players to make choices -- and experience the consequences of those choices -- comes very close to defining good game play.

[qote]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.[/quote]

OK, here is the difference:

1. Players make a decision based on information available.

2. DM provides more information.

3. Players may or may not change their decision.

Oppose this to

1. Players make a decision based on information available.

2. DM thwarts player decision in order to avoid providing them with information.

I would certainly agree that it is always allowable for the DM to provide the players with additional information, so long as that information can be provided in a way that doesn't break setting or character.

If you examine my story hour, there is a point in which the players can choose to go left or go right. The PCs are on a mission to rescue some folks imprisoned to the left. I included encounters with kobold guards, which live to the right, to give the players some idea what was down there, and included an encounter with a modified Tentacled Horror that knew the captured characters were to the left, and was able to bargain for this information. Where that sort of decision is likely to be made, the means to provide more information has already been included.

But I wouldn't hesitate to use a wandering monster for the same purpose.

What I would hesitate to do -- in fact, what I outright would not do at all -- is to interfere with the player decision more than that. So sorry you got captured, so sorry you're sitting out, but at least you're not dead, and I am not going to drive the other players to make rescuing you their first priority. Nor am I going to tell them exatly where they must go just so that you can get back in the game faster.

Now, if you want to attempt something to help yourself, I'll be happy to split the time between you and the other PCs to the degree that I feel it is fair to do so.

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.

As much as possible, yes. I am no fan of APs.

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.

Hey, gaming time is precious to me, and I would rather not sit through hours of backtracking, either. Of course, if it was absolutely necessary for the game that the PCs get the Stones of Bull, then said Stones are going to be in a place where the PCs can recognize that they are there, even if getting them isn't easy. And, in general, I don't make adventures where the only solution is to recover the Stones of Bull. The Stones might make something easier, but if the PCs fail to recover them, they can still try other ways to meet their goals.

Because of this, I neither have to fudge, nor do the players have to backtrack (although they are absolutely allowed to make that decision!).

YMMV



RC

 

[Rel]

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

I think the issue I take with the quoted passage is the suggestion that the way to handle the wish to avoid "throwing out the entire adventure" is to tell the PC's that "your ability fails because you didn't do it right". I'll go a step further and say that it's best to avoid an arbitrary "your ability fails" ruling in any event. This has nothing to do with me being soft on the players. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger rat-bastard DM than me.

It's like the old saying (which I made up) goes: There are more problems with no solution than there are problems with only one solution. I can't think of any circumstance under which the "your ability fails because you didn't do it right" explanation is your only out. I don't want this thread to turn into an endless cycle of hypothetical situations and their workarounds. But if you have an example of a corner you want to paint me into then I'll try and tell you how I'd get out of it without resorting to this.

I think my biggest issue with the proposed solution given is not that it is disempowering to the players. It's just boring. It violates one of the most important rules of gaming that I adhere to (I call this one "The Other Piratecat Rule"): "Whenever you're in doubt about what to do, just think of the most awesome thing that can happen right NOW. Do that." Almost anything else than the proposed solution would be more interesting in my opinion.

Now, it's a valid defense to say, "But the whole point of the advice was what to do when you're caught flat footed. It's all well and good to say 'do something awesome' but there is no time to plan something awesome. You've got to act NOW." Allow me to introduce you to one of the most cunning and brilliant GM techniques I've ever come up with: Urination.

When I get caught off guard and feel like unprepared I tell the group, "I gotta go pee." This probably isn't even a lie. I drink a LOT of Diet Coke while I'm gaming. Anyway, I go to the bathroom where I usually have a good deal of privacy. I (hopefully) don't have any players staring me in the face waiting for an answer while my mind is reeling. I have a couple minutes to think clearly and narrow in on what the awesome answer to the current problem is. Then I can return to the table with clarity of mind an emptyness of bladder, ready to get on with the game no matter what they've thrown with me.

Incidentally, the answer I often come up with when I "buy time" with the "urination gambit" is "buy more time". The easiest way to do that is combat. In fact, if it's near the end of the session then this will often take us to the end and I can resolve "where to go from here" at my leisure.

 

[avin]

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

Yes!

Well, I made my plots considering PCs could take an alternative route and always have an emergency plot for such occasions