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

[Leif]

Why let a character gain a power that I don't let him/her exploit fully at all times?
Because I don't know every rule in the game and because I don't have a handle on how every single power can/will/might change my plan for the evening.
That's why. And I can't be the only DM on these boards which hasn't got a perfect grasp of the rules, and who is actually surprised at the effects of some powers, once in a while.
Sometimes, for example when I've done some planning in short order to get a game together because the other DM called in sick or something, I get in situations where I'm non-plussed by what the players do, because of how they use the rules.
I think that in some circumstances, saying "no, it didn't work" and adding something about arcane defenses maybe to give a modicum of rationale for the failure, is perfectly ok.
And I think that having the rules say that it is ok, sometimes, to do that, is great for those of us who haven't got such a good grasp of the rules and how they affect our adventures as many of those good DM's who have posted before me have.
And I'm saying this as a guy who's be DMing for 26 years. And my players enjoy me doing it, so I guess saying "no, it doesn't work" once in a while won't end the world as we know it.
/M

Ok, when you're right, you're right! And, you're right!

 

[rjdafoe]

The advice in the DMG that I'm referring to has NOTHING to do with the rules of the game. Scrying spells, and this basic issue in general, have existed in all editions. There is no edition war to be found here..

The issue of "context" has been addressed several times - I direct you to one of my other posts (or Raven Crowking's) on this subject.

I am not starting an edition war, just using Rule 0 as a referrence from 3.5.

What you really have a problem with is the wording of the passage. I am not one of those literal people, that everything is black and white, and all that.

 

[Imaro]

Why let a character gain a power that I don't let him/her exploit fully at all times?

Because I don't know every rule in the game and because I don't have a handle on how every single power can/will/might change my plan for the evening.

That's why. And I can't be the only DM on these boards which hasn't got a perfect grasp of the rules, and who is actually surprised at the effects of some powers, once in a while.

Sometimes, for example when I've done some planning in short order to get a game together because the other DM called in sick or something, I get in situations where I'm non-plussed by what the players do, because of how they use the rules.

I think that in some circumstances, saying "no, it didn't work" and adding something about arcane defenses maybe to give a modicum of rationale for the failure, is perfectly ok.

And I think that having the rules say that it is ok, sometimes, to do that, is great for those of us who haven't got such a good grasp of the rules and how they affect our adventures as many of those good DM's who have posted before me have.

And I'm saying this as a guy who's be DMing for 26 years. And my players enjoy me doing it, so I guess saying "no, it doesn't work" once in a while won't end the world as we know it.

/M

Eh, IMHO, a DM doesn't have to know all the rules of the game, but he should know the capabilities and powers of those he is designing the adventures for. Perhaps 4e has less of an emphasis on this since it's more "balanced" than previous editions, but I find it hard to fathom creating an adventure for my players and not referencing their characters abilities in order to personalize the story and challenges. YMMV of course.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Improvise v. - to compose and perform or deliver without previous preparation.

Many have touted improvisation as a key skill for good DMs and I agree. I personally strive to improvise. The key there is "strive to." No one is perfect.

My issue with those who disagree with the DMG advice: If I haven't previously prepared for what the result of a divination spell will reveal, why wouldn't I be improvising when I decide on a reason that the ritual fails?

Also, I'm not interpreting the passage in the DMG as telling the DM to "blame the player." It simply states that you can decide that is the reason the ritual fails, not to tell the player why it failed. Why would they know why it failed?

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.

I think that impression may stem from his thread title. That this passage is just 1 of 1,000 pieces of bad advice in the DMG.

 

[Leif]

Eh, IMHO, a DM doesn't have to know all the rules of the game, but he should know the capabilities and powers of those he is designing the adventures for. Perhaps 4e has less of an emphasis on this since it's more "balanced" than previous editions, but I find it hard to fathom creating an adventure for my players and not referencing their characters abilities in order to personalize the story and challenges. YMMV of course.

I agree with what you say, but, I think Maggan was talking about less experienced DMs who are every bit as eager to play the game as you or I, but who do not have the luxury to even KNOW which portions of the rules will be relevant to the adventures they run until it may be too late to properly prepare.

 

[gizmo33]

What you really have a problem with is the wording of the passage. I am not one of those literal people, that everything is black and white, and all that.

Are you sure? Dividing people into "literal" and "not-literal" sounds pretty black and white to me. I'm not one of those people that says something and then contradicts it in the same breath. (I'm probably talking about the DMG here.)

 

[LostSoul]

Page 27 of the DMG:

".., but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either. For instance, the Observe Creature ritual requires the caster to be extremely specific when describing the ritual's intended target. If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."

NO!

I agree. I think it's just bad advice. It's within the DM's rights to rule how he sees fit, but just because it throws a monkey wrench in his plans is not a good reason to say it fails.

Looking forward to what you have to say about page 42.

 

[DandD]

Funny thread. I almost get the impression that D&D is a competitive game, where the players having player characters must win against the nepharious, lying, cheating, and unfair player who has the role of the game master tonight, and not play together in a make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons...

I'm actually pretty sure that most (if not all) of the people arguing that the game master never make some gung-ho changes to something very unexpected a little bit wouldn't mind their own gamemaster (if it's not themselves having the role to moderate the game together with their other friends) doing so once every time in their own playgroup.

 

[Shadeydm]

Funny thread. I almost get the impression that D&D is a competitive game, where the players having player characters must win against the nepharious, lying, cheating, and unfair player who has the role of the game master tonight, and not play together in a make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons...

I'm actually pretty sure that most (if not all) of the people arguing that the game master never make some gung-ho changes to something very unexpected a little bit wouldn't mind their own gamemaster (if it's not themselves having the role to moderate the game together with their other friends) doing so once every time in their own playgroup.

I imagine the person writing this post would not appriciate being told it was thier fault that the ritual didn't work instead of something far less complicated like say the truth for instance...

 

[gizmo33]

My issue with those who disagree with the DMG advice: If I haven't previously prepared for what the result of a divination spell will reveal, why wouldn't I be improvising when I decide on a reason that the ritual fails?

Your definition of "improvising" apparently (to extend from the DMG passage) involves making misleading statements (ie. lying) to the player in order to rationalize a decision to do something with the game that is completely contradicted in other sections of the DMG?

Also, I'm not interpreting the passage in the DMG as telling the DM to "blame the player." It simply states that you can decide that is the reason the ritual fails, not to tell the player why it failed. Why would they know why it failed?

It doesn't actually "simply state" what you're saying. If it did, you'd put quotes around it. What you're doing is interpreting the passage, as I am. So you can't put "simply state" next to your intepretation and expect that it settles the issue.

What it says is "rule that the ritual failed to located the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough". *No where* in the description of the ritual is the *DMs Plot* an element of the ruling anyway. And *protecting the plot* NOT anything having to do with the exercise of the ritual as written, is the reason *stated explicitly* for the DM ruling.

"Why would they know why it failed?", you ask? The passage doesn't address that issue. We could read together the prior section on "Informing the Players" if you would want to explore the pros and cons of this. In any case, by offering the players a bogus explanation, the DM has seemingly made the question moot.