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

[Cadfan]

The quoted section of the DMG makes clear that the ruling has really nothing to do with the text of the ritual. The DM is simply advised to rationalize his decision to the player in terms of the rules, but the real motivation for the call is given clearly in the passage. Now, ironically, many of you are defending this by trying to do the same exact thing!

Right.

The DM is making a decision based on nothing to do with the text of the ritual.

This is a good thing. It is also inevitable and necessary.

Look, the rules describe conflict resolution, typically between a player's character and the game world. The rules provide objective criteria for resolving these conflicts.

But the rules don't provide objective criteria for the characteristics of the game world.

So, to use a trite example, the rules might say how easy it is to climb a ten foot brick wall, and how hard it is to climb a twenty foot stone wall. But they don't say whether Lord VoldeMoldy's mansion wall is made of ten feet of brick or twenty feet of stone.

The DM has to decide that. And one of the inevitable (and also necessary) criteria he has to use is which answer will make the best game night. That's metagaming. Its also being a dungeon master.

A more complex example might be something like Boromir's betrayal in Lord of the Rings. There are number of reasons this betrayal happened.

One reason is that Boromir was tempted by the power of the Ring, and lured into darkness. We'll call that the "in game" reason. If Lord of the Rings were an RPG, that should be the reason the DM conveys to the players.

Another reason is that by turning a minor character evil and then killing him off, Tolkien is able to convey the Ring's evil temptations to his readers in a visceral and direct manner. By choosing Boromir, he can also tie in to future plot elements like the reaction of Boromir's brother and father.

If Lord of the Rings were an RPG, that should NOT be the reason the DM conveys to the players.

Its also the "real" reason.

So when the PCs try to scry something and the DM knows that successful scrying would lead to a lousy game, he needs to reach for a reason for Column A, and not a reason from Column B.

I think everyone in this thread knows that, even if they're arguing otherwise or calling that lying.

 

[Hussar]

Are you "stuck" on the idea that I'm stuck on the idea? Maybe I just *have an idea*. Maybe what some of you are saying to counter the idea that I'm "stuck on" is not very convincing. The above statement is an example. And here's why:

First of all there is some question about how absolute the DMs control is. There's no statement in the Players Handbook that says if the player rolls a 20, and the DM doesn't like it, he can declare that the player didn't roll a 20. And what happen to the (rather unconvincing) statements in the DMG that say that the players are supposed to contribute to the game? It's all well and good I guess as long as the player's contributions mimmic what the DM would have done anyway. That's not contribution - and IME people who are of equivalent intelligence and maturity are quickly going to detect the con.

And strictly speaking, you're not working within the letter of the rules. You did not fail the Observe Creature ritual because of it's lack of specificity. Again, if your players aren't stupid and you've used this ritual, or any ritual or spell like it and with similar requirements in the past, the players are going to be in a pretty good position to compare your previous rulings with this one, and they're going to call shennanigans for good reason.

But this is the point that you continuously ignore. This advice ONLY APPLIES if the DM hasn't done his homework. If the Observe Creature ritual has been used before, then the DM bloody well better have followed the TWO PAGES of advice prior to your quote. There should be no previous rulings with this one because, if there had been previous rulings, then you shouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

And you're going to be insulting their intelligence, and hurting your own integrity, by claiming to make the judgement based on the facts of the game when you're really only failing the spell to protect your plot.

Worse, if you actually talk yourself into the rationalization that your decision was based on the "letter of the rules", the player's aren't going to suddenly forget your previous rulings, and it will be obvious to them that, at best, the DM is also not being honest with himself.

See above. There are no previous rulings.

What are you describing, figure skating? The 4E DMG describes player motivations on page 8+. What you're saying just doesn't seem to take into account thinking, motivated players on the other side of the screen. Plus, anyone who casts Observe Creature and expects it to work is probably going to consider the DM as having fallen flat when he starts nerfing rituals willy-nilly. There's a large spectrum of enjoyment worth considering that lies between the two extremes.

Again, not willy nilly. One single example. One time, last resort. Not carte blanche to do it all the time. Try reading the text around the line you yoinked out of context.

Then say it in the PHB. Say it to your players. If it's such a *right*, then why is the DMing lying to his players about it?

And the statement says "If conditions A apply, then do B." If I see conditions A as being pretty common in the game, then it's fair for me to conclude that the DM is being told to do B pretty often. It doesn't need to be said explicitly, it's a reasonable interpretation. If you're suggesting that the conditions set forth in the DMG I quoted aren't common, then that itself is arguable.

This is where we disagree. A is NOT a common condition. Unless your DM is incredibly poor and designs several adventures where this comes up, this is a one time thing.

Well all writing has to be interpreted. Are you so sure that your interpretation is the right one that you're stating that without proof? What's *actually* written there is that the DM is going to lie to the player about a ruling.

What is actually written there is a whole lot more than the two lines you are fixating on. By removing all context, you are arguing against something that isn't really there. Go back and read the whole section again, not just the bit on rituals.

It's not a ruling actually. That word "ruling" stems from an implied set of "rules" that require interpretation. Deciding to do whatever I feel like doing and telling everyone else they have to go along with it is not a "ruling". Unless my word is law - in which case the Core Rules of DnD could be A LOT shorter.

And this isn't "time to time". That's equivocation that masks what's really going on. Observe Creature is an important and expensive ritual. And the event that it's impacting is at the core of the DMs adventure. Both player and DM consider this a very important event in the context of what was written. This is not a case of the player taking either 7 or 8 points of damage. So "time to time" is not a really good-faith assessment of the situation.

No, it is not an equivocation. Within the context of the advice, this should ONLY happen when the DM fails to take into account a player ability. That, right there, limits it to once in a very long while. Or at the absolute most, to the first time a player uses that ability.

Again, you are fixated on the idea that the DM should do this every time the player tries something. That is flatly contradicting what is written there. The advice is, "If, despite your best efforts, the player does something that you completely didn't anticipate and that action will result in the complete ruin of your entire adventure, you, as DM, have the authority to over rule the effect."

Do you really disagree with this?

 

[Fifth Element]

My goodness. Are we still analyzing a single line from the DMG? It was poorly worded advice, that's all. Intent was not to imply "Lie to your players and screw them", it was to suggest that a DM can make changes on the fly to help the story or prevent a DMing disaster.

Brevity is not the soul of messageboard threads.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If folks are generally willing to concede that the passage in question is as I say it is (more or less), then I suspect you'll say "yea, but the rest of the book is great". In which case I can continue with part 2... (I had no intention of continuing along with part 2 when I started this.)

So, basically, you didn't actually want any discussion. You wanted a round of slaps on the back for showing us how this is utterly craptastic writing and everyone to step back and congratulate you for your perception and wit?

Sorry, missed that in the OP.

/me applauds Gizmo for his perception and wit.

"Yeah, the rest of the book is great" too.

At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that this advice is something that will come up time after time in the game and I do not. I look at the rest of the chapter and think that this is something that should never come up in the first place if you follow the advice in the chapter, but, if I screw up, then maybe being a RBDM and enforcing the letter of the rules in order to get a result I want, which is not the complete trashing of my entire adventure, is within my powers as DM.

 

[FireLance]

A DM who thinks things through properly can't lie. All he needs to do is to re-arrange things in his game world so that he is telling the truth.

If the players attempt the Observe Creature ritual, and the DM wants the ritual to fail, all he needs to do is to ensure that there is another NPC similar to the BBEG that would also fit the description that the PC gave (perhaps the BBEG has an identical twin brother, for example ). Now, the DM is not only not lying, he can throw this in as a plot twist at some point in the future.

 

[LostSoul]

If somehow the reverse were true - I would have the same objections. If DnD were some kind of narrativist game, and the rules said "Observe Creature works when it is determined by the DM to be appropriate to the Plot", then I would have the same problem if the DM were secretly undermining his players efforts in this area as well.

Narrativism also goes by "Story Now". Since you can't make up the story or plot before and have story now, at the table in the moment of play, the two don't fit.

 

[Mallus]

I can't understand those that state the context of the poorly worded line isn't relevant. Context of a conversation is almost always relevant, context around a sentence of advice is critical when it is in a chapter all about advice.

But if you don't ignore the context, how can you work yourself into a lather?

 

[Herschel]

I'm thinking there are fewer mods here today due to the holidays.

Why are you so worried about it?

As an internet rant it's well, kind of lacking. It's only a bit over the top, does have the "logic hole" needed and the extreme viewpoint of the subject but it's not anything really nasty or with really absurdist declariations to add humor and/or vitriol, depending on readers' viewpoints.

 

[Gentlegamer]

While I myself wouldn't use "plot protection" to keep a divination from succeeding, I *do* believe in this paraphrase from a current film:

"When the Dungeon Master does it, it's not illegal."

 

[Kraydak]

But this is the point that you continuously ignore. This advice ONLY APPLIES if the DM hasn't done his homework. If the Observe Creature ritual has been used before, then the DM bloody well better have followed the TWO PAGES of advice prior to your quote.

And even with those "caveats", the advice is still bad.

Now, I suppose you could argue that the advice is meaningless, because if a DM read it, he would also have read the other advice AND implemented it, so the bad advice would never be relevant. I wouldn't pay such an argument any heed, mind, but you could make it...

Players will come out of left field. Learning to roll with the punch is vital. Any advice for new DMs which argues against adapting is teaching bad DMing skills.