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

[catsclaw227]

Wow. "Threadcrapping" for saying something nice about a game system? I want to say I'm shocked. But I'm not. Ahh, the land of the free. Ok then, how about this... there is no system that will fix the arguments happening in this thread. Sorry folks. At least Dice4Hire appreciates my newfound love for C&C.

Ummmm.... Who was it that accused you of threadcrapping? I can't find it...

 

[gizmo33]

Maybe it's because of the way I prep for games, but I also don't think there's a big difference between what I improvise between sessions, and what I improvise in the middle of a session. I don't think on-the-fly adaptions are "lying."

Your post (that I didn't quote in it's entirety) is largely a thoughtful take on the subject IMO. It would have been a great read on page 2 of this thread. However thoughtful though, it appears that you haven't read (or understood - I can't tell) nearly any of this thread, my particular objections, or the DMG passage in question. You're mostly raising points that were already raised AFAICT, and asking questions already answered - so I'll just skip to the main point:

Your protest about "on-the-fly" adaptations is a straw-man (there I go again). The thing you are pointing out is not what's being objected to. The quoted paragraph clearly tells the reader that the DM is being dishonest with the player. Pretty much every bit of DMing advice that you give in your post is reasonable - but it's not what the DMG said and not what I'm objecting to.

 

[gizmo33]

So far I haven't come across anything else like that, and I currently have the luxury to be pretty thorough.

I've only come across one other thing that rises to the same level of contradictory, I think, but it's a big deal IMO. And that's what I alluded to in the OP: There are places in the DMG where the skill DCs are decided by simulationist principles (for example - listening through a door has DCs based on the level of noise being made) yet the charts on page 42, and the advice given for skill challenges seems to base DCs for actions primarily on character level.

These two points - above and the OP, are the most obvious problem spots I have. My other issues, I think, are mainly in the categories of the DMG basically just reprinting things already written elsewhere and basically not developing anything beyond a superficial treatment. Did they intend 4E to be for people that had never played RPGs before? I know that space is an issue, but how did TSR manage to create a DMG with 3 times as much stuff in it? I also don't think mixing up advice with rules is a good way to organize things either (which is something the 1E DMG did as well, so I hope folks see that this is not an edition war on my end).

 

[Mallus]

I've only come across one other thing that rises to the same level of contradictory

You haven't explained why apparently contradictory advice is a bad thing. Different situations call for different methods/approaches (as do different audiences). Take 'railroading' for instance. It's something that usually should be avoided, but, depending on the group, can range from 'occasionally tolerable when the alternative is worse' to 'practically demanded during every session'.

Did they intend 4E to be for people that had never played RPGs before?

They clearly intended the 4e DMG to explain how to DM, even for those with no prior experience. The fact that this is seen as a novel approach, in 2008, by the 4th edition of the rule set, says a lot about the some curious decisions made by previous designers of the game.

I also don't think mixing up advice with rules is a good way to organize things either...

How would you write the DMG otherwise? There are no overarching rules for running an RPG, there's only advice (which is sometimes contradictory, as players want different, yea even contradictory things out of the play experience).

 

[Nebulous]

Refresh my memory, but does the 4e DMG have a play-by-play section where the DM (John) is describing the scenes to the players (Jen, Brad and Bob) as they proceed through the dungeon? I can't recall the DMG having a small section devoted to that, which would be a shame, because i remember that as a fundamental example of "how to play D&D." Could just be my bad memory though. Or, maybe the example is shorter than previous editions.

 

[withak]

Refresh my memory, but does the 4e DMG have a play-by-play section where the DM (John) is describing the scenes to the players (Jen, Brad and Bob) as they proceed through the dungeon? I can't recall the DMG having a small section devoted to that, which would be a shame, because i remember that as a fundamental example of "how to play D&D." Could just be my bad memory though. Or, maybe the example is shorter than previous editions.

In 4E, they moved that to the PH.

 

[gizmo33]

You haven't explained why apparently contradictory advice is a bad thing.

This doesn't make any logical sense to me. "Apparently" contradictory means that it may or may not be so there's nothing for me to explain. The problem with things that are *actually* contradictory is inherent in the definition.

Different situations call for different methods/approaches (as do different audiences).

Yes, but in general you have to establish what those initial conditions are. "Next time you roll dice, do X'. vs. "Next time you roll dice, avoid doing X." You could argue that the two recommendations were meant to be applied to two different circumstances, but then I think that should be made clear - otherwise the advice just becomes a Rorschach test for what you want it to say.

And indeed, many people on this thread have seemingly just chosen which bits of the advice to pay attention to and said that the rest was "out of context", "baldy written" or whatever. But then I have to wonder what the point was. Seems to me to be just folks who want the opinions and experiences validated that they already have - and those aren't newbies.

Take 'railroading' for instance. It's something that usually should be avoided, but, depending on the group, can range from 'occasionally tolerable when the alternative is worse' to 'practically demanded during every session'.

Ok - well, how is this an example of inconsistent advice? Your example might be too vague (perhaps appropriately for what you intended) for me to have much of an opinion about it - and by virtue of that nothing seems particularly contradictory since you allude to different initial conditions or circumstances.

They clearly intended the 4e DMG to explain how to DM, even for those with no prior experience. The fact that this is seen as a novel approach, in 2008, by the 4th edition of the rule set, says a lot about the some curious decisions made by previous designers of the game.

My recollection is that the scope of the 2E and 3E DMGs were about the same - they weren't "advanced" books IMO. I don't find it particularly novel in 4E, it's just that they're rehashing the same-old stuff. In any case I'd think there are large numbers of people that could have dispensed with the DM advice stuff in favor of more crunch.

How would you write the DMG otherwise?

I don't need to take a description of the various player types with me to my next game. I do need the rules for mounted combat. I don't want to see the same player types discussed in 5E and 6E just because I need the mounted combat rules. The advice should and could be seperate from the crunch.

In fact, if it's all that important to the health of the hobby that people understand this stuff, then they really could post it on the web for free. A good chunk of the advice given was actually derivative of other things I've read elsewhere on the subject anyway, so it's not like they're giving away a lot of unique intellectual property. Just seemed like they were trying to round out their term paper to the requisite number of pages.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, but in general you have to establish what those initial conditions are. "Next time you roll dice, do X'. vs. "Next time you roll dice, avoid doing X."

They did establish the conditions. In general, "Say yes." If it is going to ruin your adventure, "nerf ritual."

And indeed, many people on this thread have seemingly just chosen which bits of the advice to pay attention to

Yes they have, haven't they.

 

[Obryn]

Your post (that I didn't quote in it's entirety) is largely a thoughtful take on the subject IMO. It would have been a great read on page 2 of this thread. However thoughtful though, it appears that you haven't read (or understood - I can't tell) nearly any of this thread, my particular objections, or the DMG passage in question. You're mostly raising points that were already raised AFAICT, and asking questions already answered - so I'll just skip to the main point:

Your protest about "on-the-fly" adaptations is a straw-man (there I go again). The thing you are pointing out is not what's being objected to. The quoted paragraph clearly tells the reader that the DM is being dishonest with the player. Pretty much every bit of DMing advice that you give in your post is reasonable - but it's not what the DMG said and not what I'm objecting to.

Well, it's a darn good thing I wasn't replying to you, then, wasn't it?

I was putting in my 2 cents on others' points about on-the-fly changes, timing of improvisation, and general DMing advice. And, if nobody found it interesting, they could just ignore it. That's the way threads work.

You've said your piece, and have been a bit of a jerk about it, and I don't really know that this thread is about you anymore - much less achieving complete understanding of your brilliance. People are conversing with each other, too.

So if you have something specific to say about what I wrote, please go ahead. But please spare the condescending assumptions that this is only about you and your arguments.

-O

 

[Mallus]

Ok - well, how is this an example of inconsistent advice?

It wasn't an example of inconsistent advice. What you quoted was an example of advice that might appear inconsistent at first glance (ie, advice similar to stuff in the DMG that you found objectionably but I didn't).

I don't find it particularly novel in 4E, it's just that they're rehashing the same-old stuff.

The same old stuff to you and me, not to starting DM's.

In any case I'd think there are large numbers of people that could have dispensed with the DM advice stuff in favor of more crunch.

People who already know how to DM, I'll wager.

I don't need to take a description of the various player types with me to my next game.

My experience is that even experienced DM's could benefit from a few clarifying remarks concerning playstyles --and the expectations accompanying them-- different from their own.

I do need the rules for mounted combat.

Luckily the 4e DMG has them.

I don't want to see the same player types discussed in 5E and 6E just because I need the mounted combat rules.

So each edition should become increasingly beginner-unfriendly?

In fact, if it's all that important to the health of the hobby that people understand this stuff, then they really could post it on the web for free.

That's actually a good idea.

A good chunk of the advice given was actually derivative of other things I've read elsewhere on the subject anyway...

So the DMG should leave out everything you already know? I'm all for niche products, but isn't that a little much...