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

[Psion]

If a DM does this frequently I agree it would constitute 'sabotage'. But what if the hypothetical scry-proof opponent(s) was an exception?

I'm having trouble seeing why it's better to treat this in a binary manner. Either certain divination spells/rituals (and really, this applies to any class ability) don't exist at all in the campaign, or they exist and always function.

Isn't there a middle ground we're excluding?

If there is, you are inserting there yourself. Or, alternatively, I may be missing something about how rituals work, and they need to be fixed.

I am currently running a high level 3e PbP with a character heavy on scrys and divinations, so I am familiar with the topic. The "middle ground" that I live in--and that the quoted passage seems to exclude/ignore--is that the scrying has countermeasures and failure modes that exist within the rules so that the DM doesn't have to resort to heavy handed acts of fiat in the name of plot preservation.

If there isn't a failure mode, it's fair for the GM to house rule one. But it's also fair to let a player that might be relying on scrying to know about that failure mode ahead of time.

 

[Lizard]

I think some people's -- at least my -- objection is that the advice encourages arbitrary fiat instead of in-world constructs. "You didn't describe him well enough" is basically a DM decree, and the player is welcome to reply, "But we described him down to the mole on his left chin, and we spent a week watching him come and go from the palace with +20 on our perception checks!" Much better is to use the existing in-game constructs such as anti-spying rituals, even more so because these are plot points:"Why would he have that up unless... he knew we were looking for him! He's on to us, we've got to move fast!"

"You described him wrong" is right back to the 1e "Tell me HOW you're disabling the trap... I don't care if your character has a 99% chance, I want to know what you're doing... oh, you touched the red lever? Kaboom! Hah ha!".

 

[Imaro]

If a DM does this frequently I agree it would constitute 'sabotage'. But what if the hypothetical scry-proof opponent(s) was an exception?

I'm having trouble seeing why it's better to treat this in a binary manner. Either certain divination spells/rituals (and really, this applies to any class ability) don't exist at all in the campaign, or they exist and always function.

Isn't there a middle ground we're excluding?

The problem I see here is that there is no reasonable way for a player to determine the chance he/she has of the ability they invested in working. If the DM just decides when or if a particular ability works at his discretion...it is a plot device and not an actual ability of the player.

Let me ask you a question... would you let a player, once in awhile, arbitrarily decide a monster's ability didn't work in the middle of a combat anymore, because that ability was making it harder for the PC to win and thus tell the story he wants to (the story of being a superbad killer)? Now please tell me how this is different from what the DM is doing in this advice about scry? Of course if you run the type of game where this is acceptable and known to everyone upfront, then I would have no problem with it... probably wouldn't want to play... but I'd have no problem with it.

 

[Mallus]

Sometimes that means that an adventure cannot proceed the way the DM envisioned it, and that is absolutely okay.

Agreed, RC. All I'm saying is that judicious use of nerfing and even --gasp-- a little, localized railroading during the course of an adventure is okay, too. At least, it doing those things shouldn't be categorically ruled out. They can be valuable tools in some situations (and for some groups).

Also, I concede, upon further consideration, that placing the responsibility for said nerfing on the players ("You did it wrong") is bad advice. I started playing D&D back in 1e, where that sort of "wish-bitching" was par for the course. I kinda accept a little of it without question.

Actually, in many ways, it is desireable. It is usually when the DM is pushed out of his comfort spot that events occur in the game world, for good or ill, that are remembered long afterwards. IME, on both sides of the screen, anyway. YMMV.

Yes. Agreed completely.

 

[Mallus]

The problem I see here is that there is no reasonable way for a player to determine the chance he/she has of the ability they invested in working.

Imaro, that's just silly. If an ability works most of the time, the player most certainly can observe, that, most of the time it works. Can they absolutely predict if something will work? No. But note players are in the same situation when rolling to hit in combat. They can't predict what will come up on the die (and if they can, why are playing D&D with them instead of being in Las Vegas??!)

If the DM just decides when or if a particular ability works at his discretion...it is a plot device and not an actual ability of the player.

The existence of exceptions/extenuating circumstances are not enough to transform a PC ability into a plot device. Note that being immobilized does not make a PC's speed into a plot device.

Let me ask you a question... would you let a player, once in awhile, arbitrarily decide a monster's ability didn't work in the middle of a combat anymore, because that ability was making it harder for the PC to win and thus tell the story he wants to (the story of being a superbad killer)?

I allow PC's to do things outside the scope of the rules all the time, so that they can better play the characters they envision, but as for your specific example, I haven't done that.

Now please tell me how this is different from what the DM is doing in this advice about scry?

OK. Limiting/nerf scry doesn't have to be about preserving the DM's plot/story. It can also be seen as a way of excluding certain solution sets in order to direct players into other solution sets. The best example of this are certain dungeon rooms in classic 1e tournament modules. Certain spells don't work in these rooms. This isn't to preserve any kind of plot --because there is none. It's done to force the players to solve the chess-piece puzzle that makes up the room's floor.

And for the record: I have no story to tell as a DM.

 

[roguerouge]

Basically, the advice of the DMG is that if it's too useful to the player, don't let them use it. As a player, I'd want to know explicitly from the DM that my power/feat/skill/ritual/spell will never be all that important and will never allow me to save the day. Then I would not take it. And probably cease to play anything but "guy who chops stuff up" or "Evoker" in that campaign. Nothing annoys me more than DMs who are so rigid as to force illusionists, diviners, enchanters, bards, and rogues to the back seat of the RPG bus.

 

[Mallus]

The "middle ground" that I live in--and that the quoted passage seems to exclude/ignore--is that the scrying has countermeasures and failure modes that exist within the rules so that the DM doesn't have to resort to heavy handed acts of fiat in the name of plot preservation.

For now, 4e doesn't have the same set of measures/countermeasures that prior editions had, forgoing them in favor of some handwaving and fiat.

Personally, I like that. It saves me the time of having to play the arcane arms race game (though SepulchraveII did make that sound interesting in the Tale of Wyre). It's not my strength as a DM.

But it's also fair to let a player that might be relying on scrying to know about that failure mode ahead of time.

Agreed. But in a group with a lot of trust, that's not so necessary.

 

[Imaro]

Imaro, that's just silly. If an ability works most of the time, the player most certainly can observe, that, most of the time it works. Can they absolutely predict if something will work? No. But note players are in the same situation when rolling to hit in combat. They can't predict what will come up on the die (and if they can, why are playing D&D with them instead of being in Las Vegas??!)

No it's really not, but perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I thought I did. See your presented argument is false...the reason their ability doesn't work in the example is because the DM doesn't want his plot, adventure, etc. ruined... this is a totally arbitrary reason and, since the DM lies to the PC's about why the ritual fails... how do they know when they're ability infringes on the DM's plot and when it doesn't... thus at random times, the abiltity thay have won' work.

When rolling to hit in combat, I know that if I roll over a certain number, I will hit the monster...In the ritual example, nothing I did was going to change the outcome of that ability, there was no chance for success at all. Do you not see he difference in these situations?

The existence of exceptions/extenuating circumstances are not enough to transform a PC ability into a plot device. Note that being immobilized does not make a PC's speed into a plot device.

No but once the DM has decided for plot purposes that an ability works or doesn't work, it has in fact become...a plot device and no longer a character's ability.

I allow PC's to do things outside the scope of the rules all the time, so that they can better play the characters they envision, but as for your specific example, I haven't done that.

You're switching up what I asked...I didn't ask you if you allow PC's to do things outside the rules, I would assume most if not all of us do. I asked you if in the middle of a fight, let's say with a black dragon a PC turned to you and said, "My character's fight with the dragon isn't unfolding like I want it to, and I ran into this fight ill-prepared... I don't want the dragon's breath to recharge for the rest of the fight.", would you allow this...without any input or even letting the other PC's in the group know.

OK. Limiting/nerf scry doesn't have to be about preserving the DM's plot/story. It can also be seen as a way of excluding certain solution sets in order to direct players into other solution sets. The best example of this are certain dungeon rooms in classic 1e tournament modules. Certain spells don't work in these rooms. This isn't to preserve any kind of plot --because there is none. It's done to force the players to solve the chess-piece puzzle that makes up the room's floor.

This smacks of "DM knows best what fun is" type arrogance. My opinion is that this is usually fun for the DM... and not so much for the player who had an ability he chose and wanted to use shut down. I don't think PC's tend to take abilities so they can... not use them. Of course I could be wrong and that could be exactly why they do it...I guess.

And for the record: I have no story to tell as a DM.

Well then why would you shut down a possibility, instead of seeing where it can take you and your players?

 

[Jack99]

If there is, you are inserting there yourself. Or, alternatively, I may be missing something about how rituals work, and they need to be fixed.

I am currently running a high level 3e PbP with a character heavy on scrys and divinations, so I am familiar with the topic. The "middle ground" that I live in--and that the quoted passage seems to exclude/ignore--is that the scrying has countermeasures and failure modes that exist within the rules so that the DM doesn't have to resort to heavy handed acts of fiat in the name of plot preservation.

If there isn't a failure mode, it's fair for the GM to house rule one. But it's also fair to let a player that might be relying on scrying to know about that failure mode ahead of time.

Read the ritual again. It's quite clear that there is a failure mode within the rules. It says so explicitly in the text. (it's quoted earlier in this thread, if you do not have the 4e PHB). Why is it a problem if the DM invokes that once in a while, if the player hasn't been specific enough.

Basically it comes down to this. JW is saying: Say yes to players, but if at some point you have the possibility to avoid ruining your adventure by saying no (within the rules), then do so. How is that so bad? Nowhere does it tell DM's to nerf players or invalidate their precious choices of spells/rituals. Nowhere does it say that you should nerf the hell out of Observe Creature and never let the player use it to achieve anything.

 

[Imaro]

Read the ritual again. It's quite clear that there is a failure mode within the rules. It says so explicitly in the text. (it's quoted earlier in this thread, if you do not have the 4e PHB). Why is it a problem if the DM invokes that once in a while, if the player hasn't been specific enough.

Basically it comes down to this. JW is saying: Say yes to players, but if at some point you have the possibility to avoid ruining your adventure by saying no (within the rules), then do so. How is that so bad? Nowhere does it tell DM's to nerf players or invalidate their precious choices of spells/rituals. Nowhere does it say that you should nerf the hell out of Observe Creature and never let the player use it to achieve anything.

Huh??....

Oh, ok I see what you did... you created your own modifications and stipulations to the quote to make your viewpoint more valid... but is that really what was said?