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

[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