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



## gizmo33 (Dec 24, 2008)

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 - You wouldn't! First of all, what rights? What right does a person (DM or not) have to lie to another person about what they've done. He didn't put this in character terms. He said the player didn't something that didn't conform to the rules for Observe Creature. This is not the case at all. It wasn't the players actions that dictated this outcome - and lying to the player and telling him that it was IMO is extremely rude. 

How about this:
DM: You need a 20 to hit the monster
Player: Cool - I rolled an 18, with my bonuses, that's 27, I hit!
DM: (Fearing that his precious plot point is now ruined.) No you don't hit. You didn't roll an 18.
Player: Yes I did. I've already scooped up my dice, but you and I both saw it.
DM: No, I think you rolled a 2 and missed.

Granted, the situation with Observe Creature is a little more subjective, but it falls into the same category. The DM and the player have both read the same rules, and it is not the DMs honest assessment that the guidelines regarding the Observe Creature ritual were not followed, so why lie to the player? 

Just don't tell the player the reason for failure at all, it's much more in the spirit of the rules to suggest to the player that a myriad of forces can govern the success/failure of Observe Creature (like a Forbiddance spell), and that his spell casting attempt has failed for reasons that the character does not know. (Granted, there's a down-side to this practice also, but it's not as rude.) You don't need to blame the player's use of the ritual to cover for your failure to anticipate the use of it.

I find this insulting. And I have a hard time imagining that James Wyatt has played this game for any significant amount of time *with other adults* and hasn't been called on this. I could imagine it would be frustrating (up to the point that i actually cared about the game, which probably wouldn't be an issue) to be told on one hand that DM rulings would be based on an impartial interpretation of the shared set of rules, and on the other hand witness obvious (and these situations are very obvious when witnessed by intelligent players) examples of the DM completely breaking this agreement. Why are there rules at all? It's dishonest to the players as people to suggest that the game is going to be conducted in a certain way, and then turn around and lie to them about what you're doing. 

Monte Cook made a clear statement on his philosophy on this part of the game (not the lying part - but the part about nerfing divination to protect your plot) and I really don't know how someone would write a 4E book for Dungeons and Dragons and not feel some sense of respect for the people that have been playing it. I think Wyatt should have at least been familiar with the other schools of thought on this subject and tried to make the case for what "rights" he thought the DM had here that were relevant. Then again, maybe those of us that have been playing this game for more than two years were supposed to have quit by now.

Coming Up: Part 2 of 1000: Things I really hate about page 42.  (subtitled: why you shouldn't follow a 20th level character up a ladder)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 24, 2008)

A page full of rants and insults, like this one:



> And I have a hard time imagining that James Wyatt has played this game for any significant amount of time *with other adults* and hasn't been called on this.




isn't going to last long on this forum.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Dec 24, 2008)

I had just finished my *Worst Posts of 2008* tour de force, and then you had to go and add this one.  Back to drawing board. Dammit.


----------



## Vorput (Dec 24, 2008)

Ibtl!  

Although I do agree with the dislike of nerfing player's abilities for the 'greater good' of the plot.  Either don't let them have the abilities in the first place, or let them do the cool things they've learned how to do.  The plot will get along just fine (usually).


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Dec 24, 2008)

The only thing I'm seeing here is a variation of Rule 0. I mean, the fact that the DM knows some things about the adventure that players don't know yet make it necessary for him to have power to bend the rules sometimes in the name of creating the best story or the best experience overall.

I believe it's poorly written, though. I don't even see the example as a DM bending the rules in the name of fun, but more as a kind of player railroading typical of bad or inexperienced DMs.

So, I can say I agree with the general advice, but I believe the message could have been delivered in a much better way.

Cheers,


----------



## jensun (Dec 24, 2008)

I find your complaints new and refreshing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...


----------



## D'karr (Dec 24, 2008)

I don't see anything wrong with a DM adjudicating on the fly that something ,that is subjective to begin with, works or doesn't work.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 24, 2008)

So the OP is one of those who says let the dice fall where they may, and that RAW is king. Thanks, I saw enough of that in 3.x and do not need any more of that nonsense now.

D&D is a shared experience between the players and the DM, always has been, always will be.  Both sides use he ruleset to tell a story and have some fun along the way. If it takes a bit of rules tweaking, or a bit of railroading, then great, it all adds to the fun.

If I had a player who was a RAW fanatic, and would not bend a bit to help me tell our story, I would have one less player in a hurry.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 24, 2008)

Greetings!

Well, I'm very much *Old School*. My word is *LAW*. I'm a tyrant DM.*

*Of course, I am always reasonable enough to listen to sincere, thoughtful arguments put forth by any of the players. However--I am the DM, and I reserve the right to interpret any *RAW*--as well as make up my own on the fly, deciding as I feel best for the game, and the campaign. Furthermore, while I am more than willing to expand upon general principles, when it comes to specific rulings *in-game*--I have only the barest minimum, if any--obligation to explain myself or my rulings to the players.

WHY? Because I know innumerable things, causes and effects, histories, plots, reasonings, and so on that the players are generally entirely ignorant of.

I suppose I must be doing something right. I have seldom had but the fewest real disputes of my rulings or interpretations in campaigns I have run for the past 20 years or more. The players know how I am--and respect and trust me. Even when they disagree at times with my rulings, I have heard them out, but they know that I am the DM, and they ultimately accept and respect my judgement.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Dec 24, 2008)

Ohhh!  OHhhhh!!  Whats number 2? and 3?! If they are as good as the first, I will subscribe to the rest.

-Waiting with baited breath


----------



## Wonka (Dec 24, 2008)

Hmm I see absolutely nothing wrong with the example you quoted. Nothing. The DM is WELL within his rights to say the spell failed, hes the DM, he can do whatever he wants. Sure if he gets to draconic then no one will play with him, but the point is DM is king of the castle. On another note, pretty shocked this thread hasn't been locked yet. Ok maybe shocked is too strong, more like surprised.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 24, 2008)

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


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 24, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Coming Up: Part 2 of 1000: Things I really hate about page 42.  (subtitled: why you shouldn't follow a 20th level character up a ladder)




I completly disagree with everything you said...but I can hardly wait for part 2...it was a good read.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 24, 2008)

Your example is flawed. You told the PC what die roll he needs. A true RBDM assigns an AC "range" of a target-number +/- 5 points, depending on how important he is.

Player: I roll to attack. 27!
DM: (This character is too important to die now) He parries your blow and shifts 1 square.
Player: Nuts!

Now, onto your point which is that a DM shouldn't thwart PC rituals because they might interfere with your plot. A good DM should NEVER stop a PC from clever use of spells to ruin his game!

Hey, when are you running a 3e game? I got a 18th level sorcerer I want to play. His favorite spell is _wish..._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 24, 2008)

OP boils down to:  If the ritual didn't fail because of the player, don't tell the player that it did.  Yes, you can make the ritual fail, but don't blame the player.

The 4e DMG advises the DM to have the ritual fail, and to tell the player that it's because_* he *_didn't do it right.  That is bad advice, even if every other tidbit is gold.

Not RAW is king.  Not a pack of insults.  Not any of the other vitriol heaped on the OP.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Dec 24, 2008)

I think the OP had a decent idea for a post heaped in such vitriol that I find it distasteful to agree with him.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 24, 2008)

I think the problem the OP has with that advice speaks to the different goals of adventure role-playing and narrative/story role-playing. It's a problem that has been present in D&D since the beginning. D&D, historically, has been much, much better at the former than the latter.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 24, 2008)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


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




But we're not all gone.

There are problems throughout the thread.  We can move forward if we keep a few things in mind:  1)  Not everyone has to like everything you like.  2)  Some things that turned out to be huge problems for other people may have never been a problem for you.

Let me put this up, then I'll put in my own 2 cp.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Dec 24, 2008)

In before the Edition War starts!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 25, 2008)

I have had adventures really falter because of the scry-teleport problem in 3rd edition.  It got to the point that after 9th level, I needed to start taking every adventure apart and put it back together taking this into account (and a couple other 1-shot save or die spells).

Part of this is fixed in 4E with the cutbacks in availability of teleport powers, but the scrying can lead to its own issues.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 25, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> In before the Edition War starts!




It would be very unfortunate if an Edition War starts.  It would probably mean someone could make, "I will not start edition wars at ENWorld," for their New Year's Resolution.


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 25, 2008)

...Is there really gonna be nine-hundred ninety-nine more threads like this?


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 25, 2008)

So ... lots of interesting stuff here to consider ...

I agree that the advice is poorly written.  (And, IMO, when reviewing a purchased product, one is entirely reasonable to call out the defects in that product.  No name calling or rude statements, just a "you have to do better to make the grade" statement.  Products have to compete, and we are well due to turn down and disclaim a poor product.)

This seems to get into a "rules as physics of the world" issue: A world that has a particular ability has to work with that ability applied as one would image it being applied.

I'm surprised that the developers didn't look at every ability, and at least attempt to create a counter for it.

In that regard, I see a huge opportunity here.  If there is scrying, of any sort, wouldn't casters begin work at once on counter-scrying?  If there is a scrying ritual, why not a scrying-ward ritual?

"You begin the ritual, but feel a force opposing your view.  Do you wish to continue (perhaps at some risk), or do you wish to stop casting the ritual (using just a fraction, say, 1/10th, of the materials)?"

"You push on, and the nature of the ward becomes clear: A Nimbus of Light has been placed around the target.  Your view is blinded by the Nimbus."

"You push on, and a Nether Watcher, appears before you and attacks!"

"You push on, and are locked into a contents of wills with the bearer of the item."

So much opportunity for cool tensions and story devices.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 25, 2008)

I agree with the OP, and find the reactions of most of the posters here to be unforgivably hypocritical in regards to his conduct.


----------



## Ulrick (Dec 25, 2008)

Gizmo33 does have a point, though I don't think he should be as pissed as he sounds. Perhaps Wyatt should have worded it better or perhaps not. I personally would let the player succeed with the ritual. After all, it would have been my fault for allowing that loophole to exist. 

I'd be ticked off as a player in that situation.  In fact, i've been that player and it is frustrating. Back in 2e I played a 1st level wizard--an enchanter.  I had Charm Person prepared and cast that spell on the lackey of a villain.  The DM didn't even roll the saving throw, he just outright said the spell failed because if it had succeeded the plot would have been spoiled. 

As for finding 1,000 things wrong with the DMG? Go ahead and try. Personally, I think it is the best DMG thus far.


----------



## Imban (Dec 25, 2008)

Yeah, I'm not quite getting why you'd blame the player for not doing it right when really, any "blame" lies with the DM for not taking into account the party's abilities when they planned out the adventure. Not that there's very much - DMs are human and have limited time, so sometimes they forget little details like that.

Still, it'd be better to think "Well, how much would this REALLY snarf things up?" and then, if you conclude that it would REALLY snarf things up, either just say "Err... yeah he was in a scrying-proof chamber. And... is always in one. Really. Funny that." or just admit it'd mess things up and ask the players to not, depending on your group and the nature of the surprise.

EDIT: But to some degree, "book says something you disagree with, news at 11" is kind of my reaction to this thread - sure, I agree with you, but I don't think it's a big deal. People say dumb things sometimes, even good designers.

It's not like old-time White Wolf and their pathological hatred of the powergamer and RPG combat, where it was both a constant theme throughout the work and also a dedicated effort to try and change how people played roleplaying games.

This is a well-written book designed to educate people on how to run a roleplaying game... with a few dumb lines in it. World of difference.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm pretty sure that Wyatt's intent was to say that if the use of a ritual will screw your hard work, then just let it not work.  Can't speak for the writer, but I would imagine that he DIDN'T intend to say that if the use of a ritual messes with your campaign plot then blame the player. 

It's a good book, but that line needed to be run through an editor one more time.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 25, 2008)

I will say this:

Thwarting a ritual just because you suck at adapting to the monkey wrenches players throw at you is horribly unsatisfying. 

It's the "say yes" rule. Say yes. Yes, the ritual does work, but that doesn't mean it's all tied up nice and simple.

I don't like that statement either, because it goes directly against the "say yes" rule, which is the golden rule in improvising, and one of the 4e DMG's best pieces of advice. 

I'm not as spectacularly upset about it as the OP, but it is, really, honestly, _horrible_ advice for a fun game.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 25, 2008)

Imban said:


> Yeah, I'm not quite getting why you'd blame the player for not doing it right when really, any "blame" lies with the DM for not taking into account the party's abilities when they planned out the adventure. Not that there's very much - DMs are human and have limited time, so sometimes they forget little details like that.



This.



Imban said:


> It's not like old-time White Wolf and their pathological hatred of the powergamer and RPG combat, where it was both a constant theme throughout the work and also a dedicated effort to try and change how people played roleplaying games.



I dunno...I remember back when 4E was announced.  There was a distinct "roleplaying has sucked for too long/we are going to change roleplaying forever!" vibe resonating out of WotC at that time.  I'm sure that most of it was excitement over the new product, or maybe a marketing trick to generate buzz...but it was there.  The 4E books still seem to whisper it.

Not judging, just observing.  The OP should play the game he likes playing, whether it be the thousand-times flawed 4E, or the (9.465E99)-times flawed 3rd Edition.


----------



## chaotix42 (Dec 25, 2008)

Well, it's a 24th level ritual.

PC: I wanna use Observe Creature on *blahblahblah*

DM: *narrows eyes* He's warded with sufficiently powerful magic. 

PC: ???

DM: Read the ritual. Pg. 309 - 310. 

Honestly though, I enjoy when my players want to spy on NPCs and screw with my plans. It means they care.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 25, 2008)

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here - if there's a full 1000 things you can point to that you don't like, just put it down and walk away.  While critique is a valuable thing, 1000 points of it is overkill.  

I mean, in the time you spend going over the full 1000 items, how much work could you do on a killer setting for a system you actually like?


----------



## Rel (Dec 25, 2008)

Man this thread is choc FULL of moderators!  Evildoers beware!

I think that the 4e DMG is one of the best official D&D books I've ever read.  But that's a pretty crappy piece of DM advice in my opinion.

I say that if the players muck up your plans with their brilliant ideas then let those plans fail.  Let them fail GLORIOUSLY.  Let the players surprise and kill that BBEG while he's got his pants down.  They earned it.  It will make them think you're a fair DM.  It will make them feel good about the attention they pay and creativity they invest in your game.  And it will allow them to forgive you for the times that you throw them up against impossible odds.


----------



## Vorput (Dec 25, 2008)

rel said:


> i say that if the players muck up your plans with their brilliant ideas then let those plans fail.  Let them fail gloriously.  Let the players surprise and kill that bbeg while he's got his pants down.  They earned it.  It will make them think you're a fair dm.  It will make them feel good about the attention they pay and creativity they invest in your game.  And it will allow them to forgive you for the times that you throw them up against impossible odds.




qft


----------



## Lizard (Dec 25, 2008)

Well, now I know where the infestation began.

I've seen a lot of threads on ENworld, and RPG.net, from 4e DMs complaining this power, or that magic item, or whatever, "ruined" their precious, perfectly planned encounter. Never mind plot railroading -- some 4e DMs are now aghast that those uppity PCs might not fight the *battle* the way they originally imagined. Damn them for showing imagination, initiative, and using the tools at their disposal! Don't they know that a "shared experience" means "Doing it the way I want"?

I just don't get this attitude at all. The DM presents a challenge to the players; the players seek to overcome it. Shutting off their powers just because you didn't expect them to do something is somewhere beyond just being a bad DM -- it's an attack on the fundamental social contract that underlies RPGs, and I can't believe an "official" book would advise new DMs to do it. This is as bad as "How to screw your player's Wishes" from 1e.

If you don't wany scrying, just make sure the ritual doesn't exist in your world. Pretty simple. But giving players a tool and then saying "Well, you can't use it when it would really be helpful" is stunningly wrong.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> ...Is there really gonna be nine-hundred ninety-nine more threads like this?




Are there really going to be 999 more posts that take a fairly well written and argued OP and try to derail the entire thread with endless streams of "IBTL!" (god, I wish people got banned for that), "edition wars!  woot!", catcalls for the moderators (there are buttons and such if you want to report something), etc... until they heat up the blood of everyone else in the thread enough to succeed in their goal of locking the thread?  Cause that's what annoys the crap out of me.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 25, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here - if there's a full 1000 things you can point to that you don't like, just put it down and walk away.  While critique is a valuable thing, 1000 points of it is overkill.
> 
> I mean, in the time you spend going over the full 1000 items, how much work could you do on a killer setting for a system you actually like?




I doubt the OP actually plans to make 1000 threads, and it's just his idea of a catchy name for a small series of threads.  At least, I hope that's the case...


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 25, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Are there really going to be 999 more posts that take a fairly well written and argued OP and try to derail the entire thread with endless streams of "IBTL!" (god, I wish people got banned for that), "edition wars!  woot!", catcalls for the moderators (there are buttons and such if you want to report something), etc... until they heat up the blood of everyone else in the thread enough to succeed in their goal of locking the thread?  Cause that's what annoys the crap out of me.




This. 

The problem isn't the subject, nor the OP, it's the people posting antagonistic crap in response.


----------



## DandD (Dec 25, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Are there really going to be 999 more posts that take a fairly well written and argued OP and try to derail the entire thread with endless streams of "IBTL!" (god, I wish people got banned for that), "edition wars!  woot!", catcalls for the moderators (there are buttons and such if you want to report something), etc... until they heat up the blood of everyone else in the thread enough to succeed in their goal of locking the thread?  Cause that's what annoys the crap out of me.



Are there really going to be 999 other posts complaining about posts that complained about the thread opening? 

Will there be 999 posts complaining about this posting too? 

Stay tuned for our christmas special on ENWorld. 

A happy hanukha and other, rather less-known holyday to all.


----------



## chaotix42 (Dec 25, 2008)

Lizard said:


> If you don't wany scrying, just make sure the ritual doesn't exist in your world. Pretty simple. But giving players a tool and then saying "Well, you can't use it when it would really be helpful" is stunningly wrong.




"Well, you can't use it when it would really be disruptful" is what the excerpt seems to be saying.

I don't think the advice is so good though. If I'm trying to hide secrets from scrying PCs I'll block the scrying attempt with a Forbiddance spell or perhaps a more powerful ritual/artifact/gubbin of my own devising, or will generally have a good reason for why the PC's attempts failed. "Uhh, you just didn't describe him good" wouldn't fly with my PCs probably, so I'd be like "FOOL! It was only one of Mr. BBEG's MANY DISGUISES!"

It would be like trying to use Observe Creature on Tuxedo Mask.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Well, now I know where the infestation began.
> 
> I've seen a lot of threads on ENworld, and RPG.net, from 4e DMs complaining this power, or that magic item, or whatever, "ruined" their precious, perfectly planned encounter. Never mind plot railroading -- some 4e DMs are now aghast that those uppity PCs might not fight the *battle* the way they originally imagined. Damn them for showing imagination, initiative, and using the tools at their disposal! Don't they know that a "shared experience" means "Doing it the way I want"?



This has been going on long before 4e came out.   These types of complaints/posts are old hat.  It's almost as prevalent as the posts that have a good message, but are too immersed in sarcasm or vitriol and hate to allow others to see any key or valid points in the thread.



Lizard said:


> I just don't get this attitude at all. The DM presents a challenge to the players; the players seek to overcome it. Shutting off their powers just because you didn't expect them to do something is somewhere beyond just being a bad DM -- it's an attack on the fundamental social contract that underlies RPGs, and I can't believe an "official" book would advise new DMs to do it. This is as bad as "How to screw your player's Wishes" from 1e.




While I agree that by RAW, the statement in the DMG was poorly worded, I am guessing that the spirit of the advice was to simply tell a DM that if their plot path with 15 hours of work will be hijacked by a ritual, it's OK to have it not work as expected.  

A new DM could become very flustered by this and may well see the long, hard work on their campaign dashed, not by the ritual, but by DM inexperience with planning these things.  It's OK to keep your train on the tracks, but learn from it and try to better foresee something like this in the future.


----------



## Lizard (Dec 25, 2008)

chaotix42 said:


> "Well, you can't use it when it would really be disruptful" is what the excerpt seems to be saying.




Define "disruptful" as a way which differs from "useful". As I read it, the advice is saying, "Only allow scrying if you NEED them to scry to move the plot forward; otherwise, ban it."

On the 4e rules forum, there is a thread about a level 5 Rogue Daily which some DMs don't like because -- surprise! -- it's very effective at stopping a particular type of monster. Precisely the type of monster it was DESIGNED to be effective against. 

In a thread on the preview of the Adventurer's Vault II, a particularly cool-sounding item was deemed "pre-banned" by some DMs because it would "ruin" their encounters.

I simply don't get that attitude or where it came from; I now know -- it was apparently explicitly encouraged in the DMG. (I blooped over all the 'DM advice stuff' -- there's nothing there of use or interest to me. So I missed these little "gems".)




> I don't think the advice is so good though. If I'm trying to hide secrets from scrying PCs I'll block the scrying attempt with a Forbiddance spell or perhaps a more powerful ritual/artifact/gubbin of my own devising, or will generally have a good reason for why the PC's attempts failed. "Uhh, you just didn't describe him good" wouldn't fly with my PCs probably, so I'd be like "FOOL! It was only one of Mr. BBEG's MANY DISGUISES!"




The thing is, if I was writing the 4e DMG, my advice on Scrying would be:
"Scrying is very expensive and only lasts a short time. If the players invest in a Scrying ritual, feel free to arrange things so what they see makes the expense worthwhile -- don't show them the bad guy taking a bath or peacfully asleep! Make sure they see him working on an evil plot, or meeting with an advisor they can then track down and interrogate."


----------



## chaotix42 (Dec 25, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Define "disruptful" as a way which differs from "useful". As I read it, the advice is saying, "Only allow scrying if you NEED them to scry to move the plot forward; otherwise, ban it."




[sblock]If my players had used scrying at several stages of the Age of Worms or Savage Tide adventure path a lot of surprises would have been spoiled. If the PCs had seen Greyhawk's legendary first death knight before he came charging out on his massive steed I'd have been sorely pissed. Thankfully any secrets I had to protect were under the lock & key of numerous abjurations.[/sblock]

Other than that I actually haven't had many problems with scrying hit-n-runs in 3e. When my PCs scryed sometimes I gave them something useful, or something obtuse. I haven't had to deal with scrying in 4e because it's a 24th level ritual! I hope my PCs use it when they eventually get there, because they're hardly using rituals now!



> On the 4e rules forum, there is a thread about a level 5 Rogue Daily which some DMs don't like because -- surprise! -- it's very effective at stopping a particular type of monster. Precisely the type of monster it was DESIGNED to be effective against.
> 
> In a thread on the preview of the Adventurer's Vault II, a particularly cool-sounding item was deemed "pre-banned" by some DMs because it would "ruin" their encounters.
> 
> I simply don't get that attitude or where it came from; I now know -- it was apparently explicitly encouraged in the DMG. (I blooped over all the 'DM advice stuff' -- there's nothing there of use or interest to me. So I missed these little "gems".)




 Yah, umm, those DMs = not me. I haven't banned anything yet and good times have been had by all - 6 players and DM. Combat in 4e seems to take longer and we don't get to play as often as some would like though. 



> The thing is, if I was writing the 4e DMG, my advice on Scrying would be: "Scrying is very expensive and only lasts a short time. If the players invest in a Scrying ritual, feel free to arrange things so what they see makes the expense worthwhile -- don't show them the bad guy taking a bath or peacfully asleep! Make sure they see him working on an evil plot, or meeting with an advisor they can then track down and interrogate."




Seems pretty sound to me. I also think "no" as an answer has its place too, and there should have been some good examples as to how a DM can go about re-routing the PCs into an area less disruptful to the game. Having the scrying attempt occur when the BBEG is meeting with his previously-unknown contact or advisor is great advice that can lead to numerous adventures!


----------



## Wonka (Dec 25, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Are there really going to be 999 more posts that take a fairly well written and argued OP and try to derail the entire thread with endless streams of "IBTL!" (god, I wish people got banned for that), "edition wars!  woot!", catcalls for the moderators (there are buttons and such if you want to report something), etc... until they heat up the blood of everyone else in the thread enough to succeed in their goal of locking the thread?  Cause that's what annoys the crap out of me.




Thing is, I dont think its a fairly well written argument. Its ranting and raving, while he has a point there, he, IMO, completely takes any weight his point might carry and flushes it down the toilet by spewing out hateful and needless insults to Wyatt. If hateful speech is well written, all the scathing followups are just as well written.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Lizard said:


> On the 4e rules forum, there is a thread about a level 5 Rogue Daily which some DMs don't like because -- surprise! -- it's very effective at stopping a particular type of monster. Precisely the type of monster it was DESIGNED to be effective against.
> 
> In a thread on the preview of the Adventurer's Vault II, a particularly cool-sounding item was deemed "pre-banned" by some DMs because it would "ruin" their encounters.
> 
> I simply don't get that attitude or where it came from; I now know -- it was apparently explicitly encouraged in the DMG. (I blooped over all the 'DM advice stuff' -- there's nothing there of use or interest to me. So I missed these little "gems".)



Yea, I am not one of those DMs either.

I wouldn't say that this attitude you are talking about was explicitly encouraged in the DMG.  As stated before, it was a very poorly worded suggestion or simply one instance of bad advice among loads of good advice.

The "DM advice stuff" in the 4e DMG is pretty darn good and I am an experienced DM.



Lizard said:


> The thing is, if I was writing the 4e DMG, my advice on Scrying would be:
> "Scrying is very expensive and only lasts a short time. If the players invest in a Scrying ritual, feel free to arrange things so what they see makes the expense worthwhile -- don't show them the bad guy taking a bath or peacfully asleep! Make sure they see him working on an evil plot, or meeting with an advisor they can then track down and interrogate."



This is good advice. 

I don't let scrying become as much of a crutch as it was experienced by others in 3.x, but I wouldn't outright screw anyone with it.  I have always played (since 1e) that scrying and teleport are rare, tough and, in the case of teleport, potentially dangerous.


----------



## pogre (Dec 25, 2008)

I was really put off by the OP's title and his approach to starting the thread, but at the heart of the complaint I agree.

Now, I have to admit his approach was effective and ingenious. If he had stated calmly that the section he quoted seemed like bad advice for cutting out the players' legs - most would have passed the thread by.

I think the OP has a future in call-in radio!


----------



## Cryptos (Dec 25, 2008)

It does seem to fly in the face of the other major advice to come out of the DMG: the "Yes, but..." principle.

If one is determined to prevent a scrying effort, that would be as in "Yes, but when you view the fae prince in his domicile, it allows him to channel his power through the scrying window and he hits the party with a wave of pure arcane forces" or "Yes, but it's pitch dark where he is... he must be able to see in the dark, but you can't, so all you see is blackness..."

Such things are much, much more palatable than telling the _player_, "you didn't do it right" if things aren't going according to the DM's plan.

Although the presentation of the original post could have used a little work, I have to agree that this is not one of the 4e DMG's finer points.

I'm also actually kind of amazed that DMs worry about this... maybe it comes from the amount of time I've spent on Mage, where every one of the characters is like a walking, talking magical tricorder with information-providing spells that come as easily as breathing.  In that light, my own advice in terms of handling rituals or spells that provide information:  If your entire plot hinges on the players not finding out one thing, you don't really have a plot, just an easily unraveled series of encounters.  Try harder.  Don't get hung up on what the players don't know, shouldn't know, or can find out but rather on what happens when they DO find out.


----------



## malraux (Dec 25, 2008)

Lizard, the 4e DMG also advises DMs to use the "just say yes" philosophy, so it probably has both elements.  I also think that now that scry has been moved up to a very high level, its unfair to advise DMs to nerf it if they weren't prepared.  The point of epic play is to use lots of power.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 25, 2008)

Greetings!

*Wicked Laugh*

I *love it* when my players use various scrying spells. Of course, I've modified them. Using them is always risky, unpredictable, and dangerous.

They may very well see whatever it is they seek...and regret it--as a pack of Glabrezu appear, and carry them off screaming into some blasphemous plane of hellfire and damnation!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Sir Brennen (Dec 25, 2008)

CleverNickName said:


> I dunno...I remember back when 4E was announced.  There was a distinct "roleplaying has sucked for too long/we are going to change roleplaying forever!" vibe resonating out of WotC at that time.



There was a distinct "the previous edition's mechanics had some (severe) problems/we are going to do a fresh (aka "cool") take on the mechanics". I never got a sense they were out to change _roleplaying_, which the example of White Wolf clearly did have a strong opinion presented in their books. Two completely different things.



Alzrius said:


> The problem isn't the subject, nor the OP, it's the people posting antagonistic crap in response.



The OP did have some pretty harsh personal comments leveled at the designer, so I don't see anyone casting the first stone.



catsclaw227 said:


> While I agree that by RAW, the statement in the DMG was poorly worded, I am guessing that the spirit of the advice was to simply tell a DM that if their plot path with 15 hours of work will be hijacked by a ritual, it's OK to have it not work as expected.
> 
> A new DM could become very flustered by this and may well see the long, hard work on their campaign dashed, not by the ritual, but by DM inexperience with planning these things.  It's OK to keep your train on the tracks, but learn from it and try to better foresee something like this in the future.



This. PCs change the storyline and screw with the villains via "brilliant ideas" as Rel says, fine. Reward them for their ingenuity. Perhaps the DM might engineer an escape for the villain, though his plan is in ruins, to allow the campaign story to continue, though altered by the PC's victory.

However, simply using the _Observe Creature_ ritual as written isn't in the ballpark of "brilliant idea". If the DM discovers that he's been caught with his pants down for not taking into account something the party has access to among the dozens (and dozens) of other resources the PCs have at that level, it's OK if he does a little side-stepping to prevent the campaign from becoming completely derailed. A little. When absolutely necessary. This much I agree with the spirit of the DMG advice.

Also, it should be pointed out that the OP left out the next sentence in the section he quoted, which contained some more useful advice:
"Also, remember that high-level villains have access to the same rituals that the characters do, including wards they can use to protect themselves from scrying attempts."​
However, I also think that the example is pretty flawed. One, the wording of the suggestion to prevent the ritual from throwing a monkeywrench into the plot is a bit ambiguous. My reading is not that is says "tell the player he did it wrong", though one might interpret it that way. Rather, it says the DM can make the decision that the description wasn't specific enough. He doesn't have to tell the player this, just make a mental note of it. 

With _Observe Creature_, there are so many ways the DM could legitimately cause the ritual to fail, that if he keeps mum about those reasons, he can not only save his plot, but gets to gleefully watch the players self destruct into fits of paranoia. "What? Did we not get the description right? Maybe Zorg shape-changed or took over someone else's body. Is he dead? Nah. Is he?  Maybe he's on another plane. That massive golem he was working on, did he place his consciousness into it? Maybe he got someone to cast Forbiddance for him. We have to find the ritualist and kill them so they don't maintain the ritual! Let's go!"

However, if the DM does block this ritual, he should ask himself why this is true in-game. This can be a springboard for ideas. Was the target actually on another plane when the PCs tried to scry him? Why was he there? Was Forbiddance the cause? Who did the villain ally himself with to get that cast? Perhaps the description _was_ off. Why? Ah! The villain got an old 1st Edition Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity and put it on! What a reveal that will be when the PCs meet him/her again!

The main problem I have with the DMG example is... how plot wrecking can _Observe Creature_ be? It's is already a bit of magic with DM control completely built in. And it only lasts 30 seconds, max. Not necessarily alot going to be learned in that amount of time. 

In movies and books, scrying magic always seems to catch the target at the exact moment they're doing something incredibly important to the plot. How likely is that? They might just as easily be seen sitting on the crapper reading the newspaper. Okay, that might be a bit cruel to the PCs after they just dropped 20 grand to cast the ritual. But what the PCs see is completely in the DM's control. He can dole out any scene he wants, preferably giving the PCs something for their effort,  but maybe something easily misinterpreted, important but not immediately clear why it is, or some information which the PCs can act on, but not spoil the whole plot. And really, most other rituals have the same sort of narrative controls built in where needed.

So, unless merely seeing the target to confirm their existence is the goal, _and_ that confirmation will wreck the DM's plans, _Observe Creature_ was just a bad example for the point the DMG was trying to get across, though it could have served as a nice one for discussing any of the things I mentioned above.



Lizard said:


> Define "disruptful" as a way which differs from "useful".



Useful may not always be disruptive, but disruptive usually means something that's so useful it's unbalanced, renders encounters unchallenging or could possibly circumvent large portions of an adventure the DM has spent a lot of time creating. 1st level PCs might find the magical equivalent of a neutron bomb "useful".



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> On the 4e rules forum, there is a thread about a level 5 Rogue Daily which some DMs don't like because -- surprise! -- it's very effective at stopping a particular type of monster. Precisely the type of monster it was DESIGNED to be effective against.
> 
> In a thread on the preview of the Adventurer's Vault II, a particularly cool-sounding item was deemed "pre-banned" by some DMs because it would "ruin" their encounters.



Pre-banning is a bit silly, especially for a playtest article. Wait until the final published version is seen, at least. But if some DMs have judged something to be potentially 



> I simply don't get that attitude or where it came from; I now know -- it was apparently explicitly encouraged in the DMG.




There's nothing that says just because something is published in a D&D book, especially a supplement which comes out after I've started a campaign, that I have to alter my encounters and possibly storyline to have it in the game. I see nothing that says I, as a DM, have to not only memorize every power, feat, magic item and ritual all my players' characters have, but also be familiar with all the potential uses and abuses of these things beyond their obvious intent, and if I'm not, it's all my fault and I have to suck it up, challenging encounters, campaign and story be damned. And if a DM is aware of the potential for abuse, I don't see where he has to allow the mechanic in question if he doesn't want it.

I, for one, don't get *that* attitude or where it comes from. If I don't want something in my game, I don't have to have it in my game. (This is not to say banning should be done without some discussion with the players as to why you're doing it, especially if it affects existing characters.)

Plus, the OP citation of the DMG has nothing to do with banning. It's about existing rituals in play. The crux of the paragraph is this: "Don't give the characters less than they are entitled to, but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using a ritual."


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 25, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Thing is, I dont think its a fairly well written argument. Its ranting and raving, while he has a point there, he, IMO, completely takes any weight his point might carry and flushes it down the toilet by spewing out hateful and needless insults to Wyatt. If hateful speech is well written, all the scathing followups are just as well written.




The thing is, it's really one one sentence in the entire post that has anything to do with Wyatt.  The rest of the post is a critique of the idea he was putting forth in the quoted paragraph.  

One paragraph - again, having nothing to do with Wyatt personally - was an analagous situation that, I thought, spelled out exactly what my issue was.  In spite of that some of you seemed to have missed a key point (and some didn't.)  That is *the player was told that the reason his spell didn't work was that he didn't correctly specify the target*.  It's not that the DM doesn't have a right to decide at the last minute that the spell doesn't work, it's blaming it on the player that I found objectionable.  But I already said all of this.  Apparently this is insulting - so I must be doing it again.

Or cutting through the hyperbole, I can only find one place that I think could be construed as personal simply because it uses his name.  I didn't say Wyatt wasn't acting like an adult, or anything like it.  In fact, my statement assumed implicitly that he was an adult by the fact that I say OTHER adults.  What I should have said instead of "adult" should have probably been "peer" - because that's what I was getting at.  

I'm having to guess at what in particular you find insulting.  I would not be surprised, given the lack of specificity, that the "insults" are really just the fact that I don't like part of the 4E DMG, and that fact somehow gets translated into something of significance in terms of a possible heresy.  I really don't know.  I'm either with you or against you I suppose.

In fact, I find nothing "needless" about the stuff that I said in this regard.  What I meant by the "adult" statement I meant literally.  It was hard for me to imagine a group of Wyatt's peers accepting that they were not competent enough in the English language and the philosophy of running a DnD game in order to be treated like this.  In fact, my gut instinct is that he HASN'T actually done this in his games, and was writing this off the cuff.  It's "hard for me to imagine" because it's not possible - that's really what I meant.  I don't think Wyatt could make a practice of what he's describing here and not be called on it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 25, 2008)

I have a reputation for being a heavy-handed DM, but I agree with the point the OP makes, if not the heavy-handed method of delivery. If you're going to take an existing game mechanic in any edition of D&D and make it ineffective so as to preserve plot, it is up to you to come up with a convincing reason why it failed. Blaming the player for it's failure when it was not the player's fault is not the ideal way of handling it, IMO.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 25, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> The OP did have some pretty harsh personal comments leveled at the designer, so I don't see anyone casting the first stone.




CommentS?  As in "more than one"?  I don't know what you guys are talking about.  As I explained above, there was only one paragraph that even discussed Wyatt personally at all - and that was the discuss the issue of the interpersonal problem that Wyatt's advice here would cause IME.



Sir Brennen said:


> Also, it should be pointed out that the OP left out the next sentence in the section he quoted, which contained some more useful advice:




I didn't leave it out by accident - the preceding statement forms a complete thought - this bit you quote is almost a non-sequitur.  The advice was already given.  

It's as strange to me as if I were to write something silly like "If the player tries to use a spell that kills your favorite NPC, tell the player he's a cheater and ask him to leave your house.  Oh, and don't forget NPCs can use counter spells."  I really don't think the second sentence would do much to deflect people's objections to the first.



Sir Brennen said:


> Rather, it says the DM can make the decision that the description wasn't specific enough. He doesn't have to tell the player this, just make a mental note of it.




This doesn't seem plausible to me.  Why would the DM "make a mental note" of something *he knows* is not true?  He didn't want the players spell to succeed because of the way he conceived his plot - AFAICT this is made clear.  The ruling in this example is a rationalization of this fact, which is hidden from the players, and a dishonest explanation is instead offered to the player.

What happened to the "say yes" advice, as others have pointed out?  Part of my fanciful 1000 post critique of the 4E DMG would point out the MANY places in the book that apparently contradict themselves.  

What happened to players helping to "write the story", or whatever one calls it.  It's the players game too, and apparently the player thought that at that point in the story an Observe Creature spell was warranted.  Well, all of the sudden it seems that the true one-sided, self-serving nature of my worst opinion of the whole narrativist thing rears its ugly head.  The players are captives in a story the DM wants to tell.  

That's not "playing" the game of DnD.  This is *not* what's implicit in the fact that you're going to play a game where people roll dice.  Why in the world would you even bother to have stats for NPCs?  Just have the players keep rolling and act like you're writing down damage until you've concluded that a sufficient amount of suspense has built up.  At which time you say "the villain is dead" and everyone yells "huzzah!".



Sir Brennen said:


> Plus, the OP citation of the DMG has nothing to do with banning. It's about existing rituals in play. The crux of the paragraph is this: "Don't give the characters less than they are entitled to, but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using a ritual."




You're right, it has nothing to do with banning.  If a DM doesn't want to use scry rituals in his campaign (for example) I'm totally cool with that.  And I find your advice about using scry in the game (which I didn't quote) to be much more sensible than the paragraph I quoted in the OP.  

But I do not read the paragraph to have the same meaning as what you're saying here.  If the author were trying to say that you shouldn't "give the characters less than they are entitled to" then I'm completely at a loss as to how that paragraph demonstrates that - other than saying it.  Say "don't be unfair to the players" and then turn around and give an example where you are unfair to the players?  I think the players are entitled to hear an honest explanation about how you are going to run the game.

And it's such an important aspect of the game IMO.  The entire game of DnD is full of dice doing wacky things, characters with powers the DM isn't familiar with, players doing things that take the DM by surprise etc.  DMs have to learn how to deal with unexpected things in the game.  This one paragraph does not do the subject justice.  As I said before, he alludes to your "rights" as a DM without being explicit about what those are - but if it's anything like what his example suggests they are then I found it extremely objectionable to frame what IMO was insulting behaviour towards the players as somehow a "right" of the DM.


----------



## Derren (Dec 25, 2008)

To me DMs who do this are the worst of the worst. Not because of shifting the blame of failure to the player as in this advise, but by railroading at all. When the DM overlooked a ritual and using this ritual give the players a big advantage then the DM should roll with it and not invent things to neutralize it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 25, 2008)

Whenever I read critiques like Gizmo's, I've learned that it is absolutely imperative to go back to the source material.  So often people reacted to what someone else said about what WOTC said during the run up to 4e that we now have this massively persistent meme that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e.  Yet, when asked for examples, suddenly, all the examples have apparently vanished.

This is a good example of this.

Let's look at the entire section shall we?



			
				Page 27 4e DMG lower right column said:
			
		

> While you're disseminating information, think about how rituals might give some advantage to the PC's.  Divination and scrying rituals can allow characters, especially epic-level characters, to bypass obstacles to information as easily as they can bypass physical obstacles at those levels.  Design your adventures accordingly, paying careful attention to the ritual descriptions in the PHB.  Don't give the characters less than they're entitled to, 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 into your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed to locate the inteded target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough. Also remember that high level villains have access to the same rituals that the characters do, including wards they can use to protect themselves from scrying attempts.




So, basically, he's saying, "Do your homework when designing your adventures.  But, if you screw up, and it's going to short circuit your entire adventure, nerf the ritual rather than chucking out your entire adventure."

Is this really so bad?  Sure the best solution would be to think on your feet and come up with new stuff on the fly.  That would be best.  But, some of us are not quite so nimble.  So, do we finish the adventure in 15 minutes, then pack it in for the week?  Or do we be a bit of a RBDM and nerf the ritual?  Not for all time, just for this one time.  

Yup, the DM screwed up.  He left a great gaping hole in his plans.  But, given the choice between an utterly unsatisfying night of gaming or a speed bump of nerfing a ritual, which is the better choice?


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, basically, he's saying, "Do your homework when designing your adventures. But, if you screw up, and it's going to short circuit your entire adventure, nerf the ritual rather than chucking out your entire adventure."




But if you do not like 4e, the OP's version was so much better!


----------



## Imban (Dec 25, 2008)

On-topic, Hussar, I find it to still be somewhat bad advice even with the addition of "you should say yes, but sometimes...", because while that criticism no longer applies, you certainly shouldn't be blaming the players in any case.



Hussar said:


> Yet, when asked for examples, suddenly, all the examples have apparently vanished.




They had a thing about treasure parcels in which I seem to remember that they totally misrepresented 3e's treasure system. (or well, misrepresented it in the way you commonly see commercials doing, with a woman flailing miserably at the "traditional" system and breaking whatever she's doing repeatedly)

If you can find that one for me and it wasn't as bad as I remember I'll take it back, but part of these examples vanishing is that I didn't keep strenuous logs of everything that was said in the runup to 4e's launch. 

(Of course, I've heard similar "apparently vanished" things about community negativity, and part of that is that the more egregious examples (such as http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...arls-blog-phb2-his-best-ever.html#post4593935 ) really *did* vanish, and for good reason.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 25, 2008)

Imban said:


> On-topic, Hussar, I find it to still be somewhat bad advice even with the addition of "you should say yes, but sometimes...", because while that criticism no longer applies, you certainly shouldn't be blaming the players in any case.





This.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 25, 2008)

Derren said:


> To me DMs who do this are the worst of the worst. Not because of shifting the blame of failure to the player as in this advise, but by railroading at all. When the DM overlooked a ritual and using this ritual give the players a big advantage then the DM should roll with it and not invent things to neutralize it.



Eliminating one option is not railroading; there could still be dozens of ways for the PCs to go.

Providing only one option is railroading.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Whenever I read critiques like Gizmo's, I've learned that it is absolutely imperative to go back to the source material. So often people reacted to what someone else said about what WOTC said during the run up to 4e that we now have this massively persistent meme that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e. Yet, when asked for examples, suddenly, all the examples have apparently vanished.
> 
> This is a good example of this.




What is? I've already addressed this issue to some extent above. I'm not talking about some recollection I have. Look at the priorities that are established in the sections that you're quoting, shall we? "Honoring the implicit contract about how the rules relate to the game is important, but as long as that doesn't interfere with X". Where X is something that, based on other advice in the book, pretty much should be going on constantly. The warning that powerful characters have enhanced flexibility is nice and all, but when the "rubber hits the road", the DM nerfs the power, and does it in a really jerky way. 



Hussar said:


> So, basically, he's saying, "Do your homework when designing your adventures. But, if you screw up, and it's going to short circuit your entire adventure, nerf the ritual rather than chucking out your entire adventure."




Which I find analagous to "Do you homework and study, but if the test is too hard, cheat. And if you're caught cheating, tell the teacher that he's picking on you because he's a pit fiend." I just don't see how you can claim that these statements are what you (and others, really) claim that they are. What kind of "homework" does one do anyway? The DMG could have established some guidelines for how to deal with the rather small set of rituals in this case. But they don't care because you can just nerf everything when you're too tired to think of a respectful way of handling this. And, again, what "rights" of the DM is he talking about? "Chucking out your entire adventure" is really a presumption that makes me question how serious the author was about his section on improvising. 



Hussar said:


> Is this really so bad? Sure the best solution would be to think on your feet and come up with new stuff on the fly. That would be best. But, some of us are not quite so nimble. So, do we finish the adventure in 15 minutes, then pack it in for the week? Or do we be a bit of a RBDM and nerf the ritual? Not for all time, just for this one time.




Yea - "I'm only going to cheat on my test this one time." But that's not the case, and when you set up the priorities as you have, why would it be? Important villains and plots, unexpected actions from the players, rules you don't quite understand as a DM, and random/weird dice rolls ABOUND in the game IME. This means that when you establish a set of priorites and procedures as has been done in this section, you get a certain result. 



Hussar said:


> Yup, the DM screwed up. He left a great gaping hole in his plans. But, given the choice between an utterly unsatisfying night of gaming or a speed bump of nerfing a ritual, which is the better choice?




I think it's pretty unsatisfying to play DnD under a certain pretense and then be lied to in a rather inconsiderate fashion and find out suddenly that you're merely the audience for a story. Sure, taking the lying part out for a second, I might not mind showing up to my friends house and watching Star Trek instead of playing DnD, but it's rude to presume that they are interchangeable.

And if it's so unsatisfying, *then why is the player acting on the information to short circuit the adventure*?? Why would the player intentionally doom himself to an unsatisfying night of gaming? I think the only person unsatisfied by this is the DM. The DM really ought to learn how to share, how to improvise so that actions of the players don't doom the night, etc. These sections are in the 4E DMG but they take a secondary position to protecting the plot.


----------



## Kraydak (Dec 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Whenever I read critiques like Gizmo's, I've learned that it is absolutely imperative to go back to the source material.  So often people reacted to what someone else said about what WOTC said during the run up to 4e that we now have this massively persistent meme that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e.  Yet, when asked for examples, suddenly, all the examples have apparently vanished.
> 
> This is a good example of this.
> 
> ...




Funnily enough, I think the full source material strengthens the OP's point.  You see, the base advice (do your homework) was right, and means that the issue was thought about.

The advice should have been: do your homework.  If you blow it, suck it up and treat it as a learning experience.  The advice in the DMG is primarily for new DMs.  Any advice that points people towards bad habits (making intelligent player action irrelevant) should be assiduously avoided.  Note that if (when) players realize that the scry because the DM cheated them, it'll leave a bad taste in the players' mouths.  NOT good for a new group.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Eliminating one option is not railroading; there could still be dozens of ways for the PCs to go.




The DM is not eliminating an option - he's eliminating a result.  Obviously, and logically, if another ritual, other action, or even series of actions produces the same results in a way that was not conceived of by the DMs "plans", the DM is within his "rights" to nerf the idea.  And to do so with some pretty heinous dishonesty.

The reason I find the dishonesty so unpalatable is that it violates one of the key jobs I see the DM as having - and that is he's got to have the trust of the players that when he makes a ruling in the game.  When you tell the players what you're doing they should believe that you're telling them the truth.  Because you should be.  

The context of this IMO pretty much contradicts what you're saying in a key point- and that is that there aren't "dozens" of ways to go.  There is one way - a way that keeps the "plans" of the DM intact.  The train might jiggle back and forth on the railroad but it's going to stay on the tracks.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 25, 2008)

i agree with Rel, with one caveat:

Using a 'Locate Person' isn't a brilliant idea.  If there is one thing I have come to hate, it is the 'solving the plot by thumbing through the Spell Compendium and buying a scroll' method.

I pretty much agree with everything the OP said, but not in the way he said it.  It's important to remember that we are a community here , and try not to mix well-founded criticism with personal attacks.

Ken



Rel said:


> Man this thread is choc FULL of moderators!  Evildoers beware!
> 
> I think that the 4e DMG is one of the best official D&D books I've ever read.  But that's a pretty crappy piece of DM advice in my opinion.
> 
> I say that if the players muck up your plans with their brilliant ideas then let those plans fail.  Let them fail GLORIOUSLY.  Let the players surprise and kill that BBEG while he's got his pants down.  They earned it.  It will make them think you're a fair DM.  It will make them feel good about the attention they pay and creativity they invest in your game.  And it will allow them to forgive you for the times that you throw them up against impossible odds.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

So I think it's safe to say that most people disagree with the sentiment that you can't tell the players that they incorrectly used a ritual just because the DM wasn't preparted for it and it would derail the campaign.  This, I think is understood.

[EDIT: Though, the spirit of the advice, when taken in context with the whole section as Hussar pointed out, isn't that bad.  Just that one line was bad.  Kinda like the one line about James Wyatt in the OP.]

I also think it's safe to say that for experienced DMs, most have at one time or another "hid" the positive or negative results of a spell/die roll/ability a player used because it would have screwed the advenuture or thrown it into a realm where we weren't prepared to handle it.  Good or bad, it happens, and sometimes it gets covered up. 

I will agree that the one statement about Wyatt became the focus of some of us defending 4e/DMG/designer.  Looking at it with a clear head, though, I can see how it happens.

I see a thread with a title that I can sense will say something damaging about my beloved edition/book/designer, and I tense up.... I read the post, and even though I am tense, the OP is presenting a good point, then POW... the one sentence to rule them all....  And the original point gets fuzzy as I now have to filter my own defensive instincts, filter out what might be a bias by the OP, then I read post after post and either I get hotter or I cool off.  Dang internet message boards...

One piece of advice, maybe choose a title that won't people wind up before they read the thread. A title called "Things I don't like about the 4E DMG - part 1 of 1000" runs through my faulty internet filter and it tells me that you hate the new DMG 1000 times over, and this was going to be a vitriol spew of Exorcist-pea-soup-vomit proportions.  

And I couldn't wait to read it and fire a volley of my own. And maybe others as well....  

We react.   Dang internet message boards....


----------



## Imaro (Dec 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Whenever I read critiques like Gizmo's, I've learned that it is absolutely imperative to go back to the source material.  So often people reacted to what someone else said about what WOTC said during the run up to 4e that we now have this massively persistent meme that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e.  Yet, when asked for examples, suddenly, all the examples have apparently vanished.
> 
> This is a good example of this.
> 
> ...




I do think it's "really so bad?", why?  Because the DM/Player relationship is based on trust.  Players need to trust a DM to make fair rulings and decisions... while the DM needs to be able to trust his players to play by the rules and be honest... it's when one side decides to abuse that trust (whether it's the OP's example or a player who calls out false numbers for his rolls) that bad feelings, loss of trust and even an unenjoyable experience can arise.

As a player, if I invest in an ability, feat, ritual, skill, etc. for my character... well I am trusting the DM to adjudicate my use of said ability, feat, etc. fairly and impartially... If the DM doesn't do this...then that trust is broken and suddenly I want to know the reason for every decision he makes against me, or that I don't agree with now.

My other point is with the ease which many have claimed to create on the fly things (monsters, skill challenges, encounters,etc.) with 4e...why does this have to lead to an "utterly unsatisfying night of gaming..."  Wouldn't it have been better to devote some page space to improvising in this situation or, if that's not an option, how to talk to and explain the situation to his players, being open and honest about what's going on...rather than blaming it on the player and lying about it.

END NOTE:  How does your quoting of the entire passage in any way discredit what he OP is talking about, I'm missing how it actually changes anything.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Imaro -- What if the text from the DMG had said something like this (my change in yellow):



> While you're disseminating information, think about how rituals might give some advantage to the PC's. Divination and scrying rituals can allow characters, especially epic-level characters, to bypass obstacles to information as easily as they can bypass physical obstacles at those levels. Design your adventures accordingly, paying careful attention to the ritual descriptions in the PHB. Don't give the characters less than they're entitled to, but don't let them short circuit your whole adventure by using rituals either. For instance, the Observe Creature ritual creates a sensor that can be noticed by another. If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench into your plans for the adventure, you'd be within your rights to rule that maybe the target, or someone with them, noticed the sensor right away.  The ritual located the intended target, but the sensor was noticed and in the short time (1-5 rounds) that you get to view the target, the sensor was destroyed. Because this is a very high level ritual, though, you may want to give the caster some partial information that could be helpful.  Also remember that high level villains have access to the same rituals that the characters do, including wards they can use to protect themselves from scrying attempts.




Would this be better? [Ignore any grammatical issues, it was off the cuff without an editor.  ]  

I wonder if this is closer to the intent of the advice.


----------



## Derren (Dec 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Would this be better?




No. The problem is not the method how the DM screws the players, the problem is that he does so at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Imaro -- What if the text from the DMG had said something like this (my change in yellow):
> 
> Would this be better? [Ignore any grammatical issues, it was off the cuff without an editor.  ]
> 
> I wonder if this is closer to the intent of the advice.




I would say No.

IMHO, the DM should not be planning out how the encounter will go so stringently that the PCs cannot take actions within their means and powers.  If a PC has the ability to X, the PC should get to X, no matter what that does to the DM's expected encounter.

It should be remembered that the adventure is viewed in fundamentally different ways by DM and players.  The DM is imagining settings, scenes, characters, and interactions.  The players are trying to figure out what's going on, trying to size up the opposition, and trying to use their resources to take out/avoid that opposition with minimal loss on their part.

Advice that the DM should cheat, specifically so that his vision of the adventure trumps the way that the players are trying to use their resources wisely, is distasteful IMHO.

If you don't want the PCs to rely on the ritual, ban it, or add potential problems/costs in an upfront way.  If the PCs decide to pay the costs/deal with the problems, they deserve to gain the benefits thereof, and to hell with the way the DM wanted the scenario to go.

YMMV, but I cannot think of any example where I would expect the DM to do otherwise, regardless of what side of the screen I was on.


RC


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

So, Derren and Raven Crowking, do either of you believe that the DM should ever fudge dice in the favor of the players?  Or fudge dice at all?

Or is your preferred DM-style roll-in-front, let the dice fall where they may?  Not that either is better or worse, just different.

I believe my players trust me.  If I had the outcome of a scry altered because it would benefit the game or add to the depth of the story, the players wouldn't mind.  Nor would they feel cheated.

One other question, have either of you ever modified the effects of the players' actions to move the story forward (or add to the narrative tension, or direct them down a path, or for any reason?)


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 25, 2008)

pogre said:


> I was really put off by the OP's title and his approach to starting the thread, but at the heart of the complaint I agree.
> 
> Now, I have to admit his approach was effective and ingenious. If he had stated calmly that the section he quoted seemed like bad advice for cutting out the players' legs - most would have passed the thread by.
> 
> I think the OP has a future in call-in radio!




Maybe there should be a section in DMG2 for "Rat Bastardry 101".  Keep in mind that the DMG is pretty much set for beginning DMs.  The advice there is don't let the players ruin the game for themselves.  How you choose to do it is up to you, but this is basically how I operate--if scrying will destroy a complete adventure or campaign, then I'll throw something in the way or otherwise show them something really misleading.

But...I've been DMing for over 30 years.  If you're talking about a new DM, sometimes it doesn't hurt to say, "You can't plan for everything, don't let simple solutions solve complex problems."  In math tutoring speech, consider the highest number problems on the SAT--if the answer is too obvious or easy, it's almost certainly wrong.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 25, 2008)

*This may be the root of the issue*

I never fudge dice, at all.  I have had multiple campaigns end with TPKs, and my players have been fine with that, because they view it as making their successes more satisfying.

But I recognize that there is a camp of D&D players who believe in fudging the dice to give a campaign a desired outcome, because they believe that it makes the game more fun for them and the players.

The problem I have with the 4E quote is partially that the DMG is taking an explicit stand and endorsing the latter method of play, according to the personal preferences of the designers.  I am not really surprised;  it's in keeping with the move against simulationism that has been present in a lot of 4E.

Ken




catsclaw227 said:


> So, Derren and Raven Crowking, do either of you believe that the DM should ever fudge dice in the favor of the players?  Or fudge dice at all?
> 
> Or is your preferred DM-style roll-in-front, let the dice fall where they may?  Not that either is better or worse, just different.
> 
> ...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would say No.
> 
> IMHO, the DM should not be planning out how the encounter will go so stringently that the PCs cannot take actions within their means and powers.  If a PC has the ability to X, the PC should get to X, no matter what that does to the DM's expected encounter.



To be fair, in my example, it was a DM determining the outcome of the ritual, within the fair means of the ritual.

A DM cannot know when or if the players will use a scry ritual, so therefore the immediate result of the scry is almost always done off the cuff, unless the DM has a second-by-second planner with the NPC actions spelled out. After all, Observe Creature is only 1-5 rounds long.  

If the DM decides that there's another NPC or summoned monster or sister or lover or handmaiden in the room, it's perfectly acceptable.  And if either NPC in the room can make a perception check of 10+level of caster, then it's COMPLETELY valid.  Heck a 25th level Cleric NPC, per the DMG guidelines, can have a +23 Perception so they only need to roll an 11 to catch a 24th level PCs sensor.

Adjudicating a scry can be tricky, even for an experienced DM, but especially for a new DM.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 25, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> i agree with Rel, with one caveat:
> 
> Using a 'Locate Person' isn't a brilliant idea.  If there is one thing I have come to hate, it is the 'solving the plot by thumbing through the Spell Compendium and buying a scroll' method.
> 
> ...




While it is not brilliant, using your abilities effectively is intelligent.  And I did not find anything in the OPs post insulting or a personal attack.  He just said coming up with bad lies and blaming in on the PCs wont work on adults.  I fail to see how that is insulting to Wyatt.  I think people are trying to find an insult where there isn't one.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Imaro -- What if the text from the DMG had said something like this (my change in yellow):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMHO, no... if this ritual was made freely available and able to be cast by all... maybe, but in assuming that a player has expended resources to attain it, I don't think it's fair to have a purely arbitrary... it doesn't work switch.

IMHO, there are two ways a ritual like you described turns out... either the DM allows it to work without arbitrary moments of "surprise you just wasted time with no payoff!" and he learns to cope with scry in his campaign or...

He uses the arbitrary switch and his players, more than likely get frustrated by what amounts to a totally unreliable resource that is dependent upon the mood and preparation of the DM.  Leading to them rarely using or abandoning the ritual...

  Now the question is if it works like this why not just let individual DM's rule whether they want or don't want this type of scrying spell.  Either you want it to be a resource and your PC's can use it...or you don't, neither of these is wrong... but the I'll just rule when I want it to work and when I don't makes it a plot device...not a PC resource.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 25, 2008)

Derren said:


> No. The problem is not the method how the DM screws the players, the problem is that he does so at all.




You gotta be a great DM to cast _Wish_ around...


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 25, 2008)

By the way is there a cheaper way to avoid scrying during your clandestine meeting or other short time event than rope trick?


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> You gotta be a great DM to cast _Wish_ around...




I'd say there is a difference with wish though.  Wish explicitly said in its power description if you ask for more than this you will be screwed with.  In this case you are asking for scry to do what it explicitly says it will and should do.  And then the DM still screws with you.  Scry is a moronically expensive ritual to learn and then cast and you only see the guy for like 30 seconds.  You got to be an awesome DM to say tough nuggies you did everything right but nahya no scry for you.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> To be fair, in my example, it was a DM determining the outcome of the ritual, within the fair means of the ritual.
> 
> A DM cannot know when or if the players will use a scry ritual, so therefore the immediate result of the scry is almost always done off the cuff, unless the DM has a second-by-second planner with the NPC actions spelled out. After all, Observe Creature is only 1-5 rounds long.
> 
> ...




First let me say I have both fudged in certain campaigns and played it by the numbers... the key, IMHO, is to let my players know upfront which one it will be and thus they are not confused about the expectations they should have for the game.

The above quote added a perception check, which actually has a chance of failing and thus is different from what the DMG says or what you posted originally...would this be acceptable to me, sure as long as the PC's knew that was how the ritual worked and it was reduced in level, cost, etc. to reflect that.  Now, if I am having a NPC spot the sensor everytime they try to use the ritual, then I would expect my player to become frustrated (It's the whole Ranger enemy that never appears scenario).  Also I don't believe this would be fun for the group (not just the DM), again it's a resource and the PC rightfully wants it to be worth the effort he has invested into it.


----------



## Phaezen (Dec 25, 2008)

I think the essence of the piece being quoted is solid DMing advice.

To be fair, and completely honest *tm* I fudge all the time when I DM if I believe it willimprove the game experience for the players.  Scrying might be the easy way to get information, and I might give them one or two leads that they can use to get more imformation through mundane means (contacts, rumor mongering, buying information, research and whatnot).  I even fudge npc hitpoints in fights to extend or shorten them as needed to create tension or end a dull fight.

Just about every DM I have played under in the last 22 years I have been roleplaying has done the same.

It is one of the advantages of playing a traditional pen and paper rpg that the DM can read the mood of the players at the table and adjust the game accordingly.  If the DM feels that the particular use of a spell or ritual will destroy the atmosphere of a session then it is not only his right, but his duty to rule that it fails for a particular reason, whether it be that the character was not specific enough in his description or that the opponent had some counter measures in place.  

Sometimes I get the feeling that many players feel that the DM is there to act like a computer and run the game rules as if they are a programme, not to tell a story with them.  Likewise some DMs don't treat players as participants in a living story.  We must all realise that we are all playing to tell a story.

Sometimes the Dm just needs to make a difficult call and disallow or circumvent a players action to keep a game going or prevent a plot arch from being resolver too quickly.

Phaezen (I hope I made some kind of point in that ramble)


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 25, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> The problem I have with the 4E quote is partially that the DMG is taking an explicit stand and endorsing the latter method of play, according to the personal preferences of the designers.  I am not really surprised;  it's in keeping with the move against simulationism that has been present in a lot of 4E.




Which comes back to the value judgment of which takes precedence; the game or the story? 

If the former, the DM is clearly in the wrong to cheat the PC out of any of his hard-earned (or even not-so-hard-earned) gains. If he solves the murder by casting _speak with dead_, _scrys_ on the killer, and_ zone-of-truth's_ him into confession, then that is how the murder is solved, be damned if you had intentions of a guild-war, the assassination of an arch-duke, and a really-cool barfight for the fighter to get into. PCs win, now where's that XP?

If the latter, then you are completely justified in taking reasonable measures to thwart skipping to the last chapter of the book by casting 1-3 spells. While no DM should be heavy-handed and force one-and-only-one method of solving a puzzle, if you have certain elements that must happen to make your game run (and your players are ok with this) than shorting out a ritual in the short run to save an amazing adventure planned in the long run is completely fine.

D&D over the editions has drifted from the former to the latter (actually, it waffled between them, but that's another thread). It really depends on how the group plays, and what they're (and the DM's priorities lie). 

Horror stories are written when a group believes one and the DM believes the other...


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Which comes back to the value judgment of which takes precedence; the game or the story?
> 
> If the former, the DM is clearly in the wrong to cheat the PC out of any of his hard-earned (or even not-so-hard-earned) gains. If he solves the murder by casting _speak with dead_, _scrys_ on the killer, and_ zone-of-truth's_ him into confession, then that is how the murder is solved, be damned if you had intentions of a guild-war, the assassination of an arch-duke, and a really-cool barfight for the fighter to get into. PCs win, now where's that XP?




This approach presumes that the two are mutually exclusive. Why can't the DM figure out how to adjust things so that a guild war happens anyway?

I'm not suggesting that the PCs actions be irrelevant to what the DM will make happen, but rather that he lets the PCs set the route that takes them to where he'd like them to go. Admittedly, sometimes this won't happen because what the players want and what the DM wants will be extremely different, but notwithstanding those cases, there's usually a balance that can be struck between canny players and an enterprising DM.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 25, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> This approach presumes that the two are mutually exclusive. Why can't the DM figure out how to adjust things so that a guild war happens anyway?
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the PCs actions be irrelevant to what the DM will make happen, but rather that he lets the PCs set the route that takes them to where he'd like them to go. Admittedly, sometimes this won't happen because what the players want and what the DM wants will be extremely different, but notwithstanding those cases, there's usually a balance that can be struck between canny players and an enterprising DM.




Because its easier to compare things when they are mutually exclusive rather than a slide-scale? 

Seriously, most DMs would still work things into the plot to make most of their work go on as normal. Both are extremes pulled out for the sake of comparison. And as I said, most groups (by means of compromise) end up closer to the middle than to either side.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Now, if I am having a NPC spot the sensor everytime they try to use the ritual, then I would expect my player to become frustrated (It's the whole Ranger enemy that never appears scenario).  Also I don't believe this would be fun for the group (not just the DM), again it's a resource and the PC rightfully wants it to be worth the effort he has invested into it.



I totally agree with this.  I would never suggest that the DM always screw the effects of scrying.  Just ban the spell if that's going to be the case.   

I am really only talking about the one time that a new (or experienced) DM runs into this and doesn't know what to do or how to make it so their long hours of work isn't wasted.  Yes, it's poor (or just inexperienced) planning on the DMs part, but I see nothing wrong with fudging a die roll (the perception check) and then making sure that its planned for in the future.  

Admittedly, at 24th level, there's just too much for a DM to try to anticipate in his planning and sometimes it's important to go with the flow.

Some players will find a "solution" to problems and then abuse it to the n-th degree.  If the players were relying on the scry as a crutch, then I would make it not work correctly once or twice to encourage other ways of solving problems. 

One problem with the original post was the implication (via the title) that this was one of a thousand reasons why the 4e DMG sucks.  No one seems to be discussing this.  We (me included) are too busy hyper-analyzing one poorly worded sentence or two.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 25, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> I'm not suggesting that the PCs actions be irrelevant to what the DM will make happen, but rather that he lets the PCs set the route that takes them to where he'd like them to go. Admittedly, sometimes this won't happen because what the players want and what the DM wants will be extremely different, but notwithstanding those cases, there's usually a balance that can be struck between canny players and an enterprising DM.



A very good point, but one that is often lost on new DMs.  I think the advice (repeating the mantra: while poorly written) helps the newbie DM with that one time where his preparation time isn't wasted.  

Granted a new DM should probably NOT be running an epic level game in the first place, at least until there's some experience under his/her belt.


----------



## Rel (Dec 25, 2008)

Speaking of the broader topic of fudging or not I'm on both sides of the fence as they say.

I roll in the open and so do my players.  Many of us (always me) have those big dice with easy to read numbers so things pretty much fall as they may and we all live with the consequences and fun that results.  I wouldn't run a game otherwise because the randomness and chaos introduced by the dice is what turns the game from a "determine what will happen and watch it unfold" and "set up a situation and discover what happens".  And that's a big reason that I like to run games.

On the other hand, I'm not above a bit of fudging on the back end.  I try to plan for the game to be awesome.  However sometimes I discover as things are unfolding that it could be MORE awesome if I'd planned a little different.  And so I adjust the plan on the fly to add that touch of awesome.  In other words, my game is not pre-programmed to generate a given output with a given input.  I am there to make adjustments.

I'll give a quick example:  I ran this combat with a big critter that would swallow people whole and had a symbiotic relationship with these giant bats it would hatch out that would then go grab people to drop into its mouth for swallowing.  Most of the way through the battle the party had downed nearly all the bats and I could tell that it was going to be a bit of a slugfest with them grinding down the big critter's (considerable) hit points.  Just then I got an inspiration that I should let it hatch out another bat because it had just eaten somebody (a hapless NPC shepherd).  In 4e terms I decided that this was basically a power that recharged upon a specific condition (eating somebody).  The bat hatching out would provide another threat for them to target besides the big bad and also show them that these bats were a product of the creature itself, giving them some information they didn't already have.  So I did that.  Rather sizable fudge but it made the battle more interesting and dynamic.  I'm not sorry I did it.

I also fudge in another way that I'll call a "big picture fudge".  I'm a pretty smart guy.  But I'm just one guy.  And my players are all smart too and they've got me outnumbered.  This doesn't mean that when they come up with a cool idea that I squash it.  It means that when they come up with a cool idea I *steal *it!

When they suddenly say, "Hey!  Because of evidence X, Y and Z, I'll just bet that Evil Organization A is in cahoots with Evil Organization B!" then I'm suddenly going "Holy crap!  That's brilliant!"  Suddenly I'm weaving this idea into the ongoing plot and things just got that much better.

This doesn't mean that my game world has no internal consistancy.  As a matter of fact, I require that it does.  But internal consistancy doesn't mean being chained to what you have thought of.  Internal consistancy means I adhere to what has been *established*.  As long as I keep that intact then I feel free to change stuff around in the background to generate maximum awesome as often as possible.

I don't pretend that this is the one true way.  But it works for me and it lets me use my creativity not only to weave an interesting game from my ideas but also to weave in threads inadvertantly offered up by my players until we have a rug that really ties the campaign together.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Which comes back to the value judgment of which takes precedence; the game or the story?



I don't think this is the actual value judgment here. "Game" seems to imply that one choice is fun and the other is not, while "story" seems to imply that one choice is scripted and the other is not.

It doesn't look to me like a choice between "fun" and "scripted". It looks more to me like a choice between the strict application of the game rules, and the players' enjoyment of a single session.

I am sure that there are quite a few DMs who will be in favor of always strictly applying the game rules, because they feel that such internal consistency is conducive to the players' long-term enjoyment of the game. I am equally sure that there will be other DMs who will be prepared to ignore or fudge the rules, especially if they can do so in a way that will not be obvious to the players, in order to add complications which they feel will make the session more interesting for them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> So, Derren and Raven Crowking, do either of you believe that the DM should ever fudge dice in the favor of the players?  Or fudge dice at all?




The DM should not.  IMHO.  Ever.



> Or is your preferred DM-style roll-in-front, let the dice fall where they may?  Not that either is better or worse, just different.




Not generally, because doing so can grant players information that their characters should not have.  



> One other question, have either of you ever modified the effects of the players' actions to move the story forward (or add to the narrative tension, or direct them down a path, or for any reason?)




Can you ask this question more specifically?  I am not sure exactly what you are asking.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 26, 2008)

I think a better piece of overall advice would be this:

*DM's, don't be too attached to your plans*. Players can and will foil them in a variety of interesting ways that we can't possibly take into account in these rulebooks. Flexibility is key, because robbing a player of a power that they have every reason to believe they can use is one of the quickest ways to loose player trust there is. 

Here are a series of common improvisational tools you can use when your players catch you off guard:

<blahblahblah>

Guidelines like "when in doubt, throw in a combat," or "you discover that the trouble runs deeper," or "flight doesn't mean you can't be hit," "don't bottleneck," "always have more options than they can pursue," and "maintain forward momentum -- you can't go back!" might be useful guidelines here. 

Because seriously, DM's: Don't be too attached to your plans. It is, in essense, the players' _job_ to screw with them. And it's your job to have a bag of tricks that can respond to the inevitable situation when the players use an option you overlooked to solve a problem that you thought was going to be so much cooler.

Anything else is railroading, to a certain degree.

Not that that level of railroading is always a problem, just that it should always be avoided because sooner or later it is a problem.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> The DM should not. IMHO. Ever.



And this is a place where our DM styles diverge.   (and you have never fudged a roll made behind the screen?  NEVER?  Wow... that takes some self-control.)



> Not generally, because doing so can grant players information that their characters should not have.



In this case, I meant rolls like combat attacks, etc.  Not rolls like search or perception that should be done behind the screen so as not to tip off the players unnecessarily.



> Can you ask this question more specifically?  I am not sure exactly what you are asking.



Well, I suppose a couple of things.  For example, a roll done behind the screen.  Have you ever fudged the roll so that it works or doesn't work in the player's favor?

Or maybe There's a plan the players concoct or a spell/ritual that they want to use.  In using it or the players or PCs might be making a bad mistake or it could send them in a direction that isn't conducive to game play. 

For example, a player is sitting out because his PC was captured, they are trying to find him.  They use a spell or make a plan that would send them in the opposite direction, and the player would likely sit out another hour or so while the PCs bumble around.  Instead, off the cuff, you place an NPC or something that nudges them in the right direction so that the player might join the game again.

these are just some (of possibly many) examples where I would modify the effects of the players' actions to move the story forward. 

I think this might have to do with some of the DMing paradigm differences.  I am guessing - and trying to remember from previous posts - that you are a sandbox style DM.

I don't have the time to build a sandbox campaign the way I would want to, so I run slightly modified prepublished adventures, lately APs.  If the players miss the hidden door that holds the Thingy of Some Notable Importance, or their search rolls come up sucky, then I have been known to fudge a bit, and give them a bite so that they either find another clue, or search more thoroughly.  

Gaming time is precious for me, so I would rather not sit through hours of backtracking, searching every corridor and room only to find that the secret compartment was in the room they searched two hours ago.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think a better piece of overall advice would be this:
> 
> *DM's, don't be too attached to your plans*. Players can and will foil them in a variety of interesting ways that we can't possibly take into account in these rulebooks. Flexibility is key, because robbing a player of a power that they have every reason to believe they can use is one of the quickest ways to loose player trust there is.
> 
> ...



Best response I've heard so far.  So like, This, QFT, win, all that.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2008)

Oh, hey, I'm not saying that this is Shakespeare and the greatest advice ever.  My point is that Gizmo has pulled a single quote out of context, and then tried to paint this as general advice that DM's should do ever single time.

It's not.  It's a last moment, "Ah crap" sort of thing that should only ever happen once.  If you've actually followed the advice on the previous TWO PAGES of the DMG, then it shouldn't happen at all.  

However, there are times when we forget stuff like this.  I know that I do.  "What do you mean you scry?  You can do that?  Oh, right, you got that book five sessions ago and now is the first time you're going to use it...  ummm...  "  

In other words, the DM's dropped the ball.  Now you have three choices:  allow the effect/plan to work and chuck out your adventure (because it's RIGHT THERE in the quote that following the effect/plan will short circuit and ENTIRE ADVENTURE) ; allow the effect to work and try to ad hoc an entire session's worth of material and still chuck out (or maybe salvage some of) your adventure; or this one time only nerf the effect and carry on as planned.

It's funny the level of player entitlement we're seeing from Gizmo, Raven Crowking and others considering how vehemently they argue against anything which impinges on DM's authority.  Here, we're being told that, no matter what, because the rule books say so, the DM MUST CAVE.  The DM HAS NO AUTHORITY to change the rules or effects.  It is VERBOTTEN that the DM change or alter any effect or power the player has.

Irony tastes sweet.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Dec 26, 2008)

This is an interesting topic, though the fires burn a bit hot. I think there is an interesting theoretical discussion in here somewhere: how much control over a story should the DM take?

I've been known to fudge die-rolls once in a while. I've even been caught once or twice. My group has a bad habit of second-guessing me, which is sort of a pain sometimes.

However, I believe in maintaining a loose grip on the story. For dramatic flair, I might have a BBEG last another round or two to push the party a little bit more. Also, if the party is in significant danger, I might cut them a break.

One time I did save my wife's character from being thrown into a pit (she made the mistake of putting her character on the edge of a 100' deep pit with a green dragon right there able to shove). She failed the save but one of our other characters had not yet gone, I gave him an immediate chance to go save her by burning an action point and rolling some skill checks. It worked but people knew I cheated - I should have rolled behind  the screen for it.

On the other hand, it's the die-rolls and the unexpected that make D&D a shared story rather than the DM's story. You never know what the players will come up with and often it moves the story around in surprising and entertaining ways. We should embrace these changes, not fear them.

In the OP's example, perhaps it does make the story more interesting if they're able to see what the BBEG is up to. Maybe the BBEG detects their scrying and begins to lie. It is very important in games like this to build out the sandbox a bit. Ask yourself "what would BBEG be doing now while the party is handling this room full of minions?" "How did the BBEG get where he or she is?" "What do they want and how would they react to the party's interloping?"

These are very important questions that will add to the fluidity of the story as your party starts to change things. I did this very well when I ran KOTS and not so well with Thunderspire Labyrinth. I hope to fix that as we're running through Pyramid of Shadows. "What are Karavakos and his shards doing right now? What is Vyrellis thinking? What do they all want? How are they changing their behavior based on the party?" If I know this, and the PCs manage to learn something more from them, the world will seem more fluid and real.

I know it sounds hokey but I like to actually visualize myself looking through the eyes of the BBEG (long before the party may eve know who it is). "What am I doing? What do I want?" It's sort of like method-acting. You must BECOME the BBEG to truly understand he or she. It was this method that led me to the idea that Kalarel in KOTS is actually a serial killer on top of being an Orcus priest. This led the party into some CSI-style crime scene investigations before they started digging into the Keep. Now the bad guy had motivations and actions that the PCs began to understand so when they saw him, he was a lot more real than just a dude with a funny hat.

Deadwood is a great example of a story that moves organically rather than with plot. People change their behavior based on the actions of others. They have backgrounds, ambitions, and personalities - not storylines. That's how a good BBEG is.

Anyway, I think its very interesting to discuss when a DM should put his or her hand in to move the story one direction and when they should step back and let the story evolve on its own.


----------



## Shadeydm (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> But that's a pretty crappy piece of DM advice in my opinion.
> 
> I say that if the players muck up your plans with their brilliant ideas then let those plans fail.  Let them fail GLORIOUSLY.  Let the players surprise and kill that BBEG while he's got his pants down.  They earned it.  It will make them think you're a fair DM.  It will make them feel good about the attention they pay and creativity they invest in your game.  And it will allow them to forgive you for the times that you throw them up against impossible odds.




This, a thousand times this!!


----------



## avin (Dec 26, 2008)

Let them scry and make NPCs fail if they're not prepared! NPCs are not perfect, they fail sometimes. 

Part of DM's job is improvise.


----------



## Derren (Dec 26, 2008)

avin said:


> Let them scry and make NPCs fail if they're not prepared! NPCs are not perfect, they fail sometimes.
> 
> Part of DM's job is improvise.




If only more DMs would realize this.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2008)

Derren said:


> If only more DMs would realize this.




But that's not really the issue though.  Sure, all DM's have to improvise sometimes.  That's not in question here.

The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?  We're not talking about blowing an encounter or two, we're talking, by the quote in the DMG, and entire adventure.

Gizmo appears stuck on the idea that the DM is lying and cheating.  Yet, if the DM has absolute control over the game world, then how is he cheating.  He states that the spell did not work because the description the players gave was not thorough enough.  That's working within the letter of the rules.  The spell does state that you have to be very specific.  

Is it the best solution?  Nope.  Not by a long shot.  The best solution would be for the DM to be able to extemporize an entire session out of his head and make it interesting for the entire group.  That would be absolutely fantastic if everyone could pull it off.

Unfortunately, most of us can't.  Sure, we all might have that one or two session that we pulled everything out of our hat and everything worked great.  I'm also absolutely sure that we've all tried it and fallen flat on our faces.  

Remember, the quote is not saying "do this every time to keep the players on your tightly scripted tracks".  That is absolutely not what it's saying.  What it IS saying is, "if, despite reading this advice, you choose to ignore all of it, and screw up and forget about some ability your PC's have, then you have the power as DM to nerf that ability".  Note it does not say that you should do this.  It ONLY says that you have the authority to do so.  

Is anyone actually challenging what's written here, rather than what people seem to think is written here?

Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?


----------



## Derren (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?




Yes.
At best the DM shouldn't even have a superdetailed adventure prepared. But if he insists on doing the work anyway he should still throw it away instantly the PCs do outsmart the NPCs/him.

Even just bending the adventure is ok, but like in this example flat out nerfing a PCs ability just so that the train can stay on track is unacceptable in all circumstances.


----------



## timbannock (Dec 26, 2008)

I've changed entire plots because players did something unexpected.

In one campaign, the PCs didn't just beat a dragon they fought, they also trapped his soul in a gem that had a magic jar kind of effect.  Better yet, at the end of the campaign, against the BBEG, they pulled out that gem (which I'd forgotten about) and decided to break it, just to see what would happen.

I had no clue.  So I figured it would be something disastrous to everyone, but that MAYBE someone could use to their advantage.  I tossed everybody into the Astral and staged the fight there.  The PCs used it to their advantage, and the BBEG went down like a schmuck.  The players deserved it.

I've gone the other way, too.  The players were supposed to go into a goblin city all friendly like in order to pass mostly unnoticed and use the back door to Rappan Athuk, Orcus' abode on the material world.  Instead, they went in guns blazing after one of the goblins made a comment about their mothers, and the situation was a disaster.  The PCs wrecked the goblins however.  I needed to punish the players for being so "kick in the door" about the situation, but honestly, they beat the goblins fair and square.

But I thought to myself: "these are guards to the goblin city gates.  They have to check in every so often, change shifts, etc."  Therefore, using a second level spell (Status, maybe?) cast on the goblin sergeants who were stationed at the gate, I made it so the goblin shamans were aware that somebody killed the gate guards.  When the PCs went into the goblin city, the whole place was on high alert.  The PCs -- obviously not the subtle type -- didn't hide their holy symbols and such, and so the goblins figured it was these do-gooders.

The players got royally borked after that point.  25 goblin gate guards vs. some tough, level 13 PCs?  Narry a sweat was broken.  But a goblin city of thousands of goblins, including higher level shamans and chieftain w/ bodyguards?  The PCs were doomed.

Anyway, both situations ended WAY different than I would have thought.  One of the key things I took away from it was being able to stop game for a few minutes ("You guys wanna go have a smoke while I make some notes?") and think logically about the situation, and then consider what would be most dramatically appropriate.

I've never said "No, that doesn't work."  I have made it not the optimal choice, because their is ALWAYS a counter-method, or a way to trace something back to its source.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> And this is a place where our DM styles diverge.   (and you have never fudged a roll made behind the screen?  NEVER?  Wow... that takes some self-control.)




Oh, no.  Not at all.  The 2nd Ed DMG actively encouraged this sort of fudging, and, believing the reasoning of the game designers, I tried it.  Worst advice ever.  It didn't take the players long at all to realize what had changed, and it was a campaign ruiner.  Never again.

I've given in to the impulse, and regretted it deeply.



> In this case, I meant rolls like combat attacks, etc.  Not rolls like search or perception that should be done behind the screen so as not to tip off the players unnecessarily.




Ah, but what if there is something unusual about the combat?  For instance, let's say that the PCs are fighting an illusionary creature which will simply never hit them -- no matter what -- and can seemingly absorb an infinite amount of damage?  

What if I don't want them to know that the orc can only hit them on a 15 or higher, so that they have to guage their reactions by description?  So, if the first attack roll was, say, a 20, I can say "The orc bypasses your defenses easily" and the players don't know right away if it was luck or skill.

If a lot hangs on a single die roll, though, that roll is made in the open.  It is more important that the player can trust the dice/me the DM than it is to keep a strict divide between player and character knowledge. 



> Well, I suppose a couple of things.  For example, a roll done behind the screen.  Have you ever fudged the roll so that it works or doesn't work in the player's favor?




See above, re: 2nd Edition.  Never again.



> Or maybe There's a plan the players concoct or a spell/ritual that they want to use.  In using it or the players or PCs might be making a bad mistake or it could send them in a direction that isn't conducive to game play.




IMHO, and IME, allowing the players to make choices -- and experience the consequences of those choices -- comes very close to defining good game play.

[qote]For example, a player is sitting out because his PC was captured, they are trying to find him.  They use a spell or make a plan that would send them in the opposite direction, and the player would likely sit out another hour or so while the PCs bumble around.  Instead, off the cuff, you place an NPC or something that nudges them in the right direction so that the player might join the game again.[/quote]

OK, here is the difference:

1.  Players make a decision based on information available.

2.  DM provides more information.

3.  Players _*may or may not*_ change their decision.

Oppose this to

1.  Players make a decision based on information available.

2.  DM thwarts player decision in order to avoid providing them with information.

I would certainly agree that it is always allowable for the DM to provide the players with additional information, so long as that information can be provided in a way that doesn't break setting or character.

If you examine my story hour, there is a point in which the players can choose to go left or go right.  The PCs are on a mission to rescue some folks imprisoned to the left.  I included encounters with kobold guards, which live to the right, to give the players some idea what was down there, and included an encounter with a modified Tentacled Horror that knew the captured characters were to the left, and was able to bargain for this information.  Where that sort of decision is likely to be made, the means to provide more information has already been included.

But I wouldn't hesitate to use a wandering monster for the same purpose.

What I would hesitate to do -- in fact, what I outright would not do at all -- is to interfere with the player decision more than that.  So sorry you got captured, so sorry you're sitting out, but at least you're not dead, and I am not going to drive the other players to make rescuing you their first priority.  Nor am I going to tell them exatly where they must go just so that you can get back in the game faster.

Now, if you want to attempt something to help yourself, I'll be happy to split the time between you and the other PCs to the degree that I feel it is fair to do so.



> I think this might have to do with some of the DMing paradigm differences.  I am guessing - and trying to remember from previous posts - that you are a sandbox style DM.




As much as possible, yes.  I am no fan of APs.



> Gaming time is precious for me, so I would rather not sit through hours of backtracking, searching every corridor and room only to find that the secret compartment was in the room they searched two hours ago.




Hey, gaming time is precious to me, and I would rather not sit through hours of backtracking, either.  Of course, if it was absolutely necessary for the game that the PCs get the Stones of Bull, then said Stones are going to be in a place where the PCs can recognize that they are there, even if getting them isn't easy.  And, in general, I don't make adventures where the only solution is to recover the Stones of Bull.  The Stones might make something easier, but if the PCs fail to recover them, they can still try other ways to meet their goals.

Because of this, I neither have to fudge, nor do the players have to backtrack (although they are absolutely allowed to make that decision!).

YMMV



RC


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?




I think the issue I take with the quoted passage is the suggestion that the way to handle the wish to avoid "throwing out the entire adventure" is to tell the PC's that "your ability fails because you didn't do it right".  I'll go a step further and say that it's best to avoid an arbitrary "your ability fails" ruling in any event.  This has nothing to do with me being soft on the players.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger rat-bastard DM than me.

It's like the old saying (which I made up) goes:  There are more problems with no solution than there are problems with only one solution.  I can't think of any circumstance under which the "your ability fails because you didn't do it right" explanation is your only out.  I don't want this thread to turn into an endless cycle of hypothetical situations and their workarounds.  But if you have an example of a corner you want to paint me into then I'll try and tell you how I'd get out of it without resorting to this.

I think my biggest issue with the proposed solution given is not that it is disempowering to the players.  It's just _boring_.  It violates one of the most important rules of gaming that I adhere to (I call this one "The Other Piratecat Rule"):  "Whenever you're in doubt about what to do, just think of the most awesome thing that can happen right NOW.  Do that."  Almost anything else than the proposed solution would be more interesting in my opinion.

Now, it's a valid defense to say, "But the whole point of the advice was what to do when you're caught flat footed.  It's all well and good to say 'do something awesome' but there is no time to plan something awesome.  You've got to act NOW."  Allow me to introduce you to one of the most cunning and brilliant GM techniques I've ever come up with:  Urination.

When I get caught off guard and feel like unprepared I tell the group, "I gotta go pee."  This probably isn't even a lie.  I drink a LOT of Diet Coke while I'm gaming.  Anyway, I go to the bathroom where I usually have a good deal of privacy.  I (hopefully) don't have any players staring me in the face waiting for an answer while my mind is reeling.  I have a couple minutes to think clearly and narrow in on what the awesome answer to the current problem is.  Then I can return to the table with clarity of mind an emptyness of bladder, ready to get on with the game no matter what they've thrown with me.

Incidentally, the answer I often come up with when I "buy time" with the "urination gambit" is "buy more time".  The easiest way to do that is combat.  In fact, if it's near the end of the session then this will often take us to the end and I can resolve "where to go from here" at my leisure.


----------



## avin (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?




Yes! 

Well, I made my plots considering PCs could take an alternative route and always have an emergency plot for such occasions


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Dinkeldog said:


> The advice there is don't let the players ruin the game for themselves.




This sort of attitude was EXACTLY my motivation for the thing about "adults" in the OP. In both other sections of the DMG as well as other posts on this thread, people mention the philosophy that players and DMs are somehow co-creators of the so-called "story" in the campaign. But then pretty obviously, and quickly - both here and in the quoted section of the DMG - the DM suddenly becomes a tyrant.

If the narrativist gaming style is one that everyone is on board with, then why does it seem so natural for DMs playing in that style to lie to his players about it? The DM can say "hey, your scry fails because otherwise the adventure would be ruined." and the player will say "Wow, man, thanks for saving me from ruining the game for myself! You're the greatest DM ever!"



Dinkeldog said:


> -if scrying will destroy a complete adventure or campaign, then I'll throw something in the way or otherwise show them something really misleading.




This raises the question of exactly what the definition of "destroy a complete adventure or campaign" is. Do your session notes burst into flame when the PCs kill the BBEG?  The only thing this seems to me to be destroying are *your expectations* - and it's very presumptuous IMO, though consistent, to get those mixed up with the campaign. 

So maybe it would help to be clear about exactly what role you expect players to play in determining the events of the campaign (which you probably have been with your own group, but IMO the PHB and DMG have not been). If you want DM to have "plot action points" that he can use to thwart player actions for no other reason than say so. In fact, since it's all so much good for the players then say so in a large disclaimer in the beginning of the Players Handbook. Then everyone is being honest about the game. 



Dinkeldog said:


> But...I've been DMing for over 30 years. If you're talking about a new DM, sometimes it doesn't hurt to say, "You can't plan for everything, don't let simple solutions solve complex problems." In math tutoring speech, consider the highest number problems on the SAT--if the answer is too obvious or easy, it's almost certainly wrong.




Well, I hope you're directing this advice to the new DM, because saying "no, it doesn't work because I don't want it to" is a pretty simple solution isn't it? 

Secondly, I really don't think actual thinking people of the professions that use math or even logical thinking go out of their way to create complexity. In fact, people win medals for coming up with simple proofs and solutions to things that were previously complex. In my little subculture, it's actually a virtue to not be pedantic. 

A solution to a problem doesn't stop being a solution if it's simple. The only reason to be second guessing the psychology of the SAT designer is that you really don't know what the answer is supposed to be. The real world IME is not multiple choice, so you're often stuck with having to know what you're talking about.


----------



## Lizard (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But that's not really the issue though.  Sure, all DM's have to improvise sometimes.  That's not in question here.
> 
> The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?  We're not talking about blowing an encounter or two, we're talking, by the quote in the DMG, and entire adventure.




If a single Scry blows the entire adventure, you've designed a very poor adventure. Sorry.

4e gives you, what, 30 seconds of Scry time, at level 24?

Consider this: By the time your players are level 24, you have DMed them through a LOT of adventures. (A newbie DM starting a high-level campaign is, quite simply, a moron.) You should have learned by now how to improvise. I am having a hard time thinking about how 30 seconds of scrying can "destroy" an entire adventure. (Even when we got scry in 3.5, it rarely helped. First, we almost never knew what the person we wanted looked like. Second, our DM was fond of scrying guard spells that would Feeblemind you. Thrid, scrying was a violation of local law, and doing so in the bounds of the city would be Highly Problematic. So if we knew who we wanted to scry on, we had to be VERY cautious they wouldn't detect us and report us, and if our target was remote, we usually had nothing but rumors to go on, not enough to get a "fix". Usually, scrying was something we bluebooked -- i.e, "I will spend a week trying to scry on the BBEG, let me know if I get anything but a migraine for my troubles.")

I understand the point of the advice -- don't let a single spell upend everything -- but, really, the advice should be focused on "How to improvise something new when that happens", not "How to lock down your players".


----------



## Hussar (Dec 26, 2008)

Lizard said:


> If a single Scry blows the entire adventure, you've designed a very poor adventure. Sorry.
> 
> 4e gives you, what, 30 seconds of Scry time, at level 24?
> 
> ...




Oh, fair enough.  Then again, if you turn the page, you get a nice spread on exactly how to "wing it" as well.  So, it's not like this is left in a vacuum with nothing around it.

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.

You're absolutely right.  An adventure that would be ruined by a Scry ritual is probably a pretty poor adventure in its own right anyway.  I almost wonder if Wyatt knew the duration of Scry in 4e when he wrote the advice.  

Rel commented that he would like to see advice on what to do when the players jump outside of the planned adventure.  Well, that's on the next page.  

In other words, this advice should never really come up in the first place.  And, again, note, he doesn't say "Do this, it's the best answer".  He says, "You'd be within your rights to rule that the ritual failed..."  In other words, he is empowering the DM to have some control over the game.  

Not absolute power, not "tyrant" power.  Extremely limited, one shot, when it's absolutely needed power.  When something you didn't expect comes up, it's ok to say no sometimes.  Not all the time.  

In Neuronphaser's example of breaking the gem to release the trapped creature, would anyone say that he would be absolutely wrong if he said, "You break the gem and the creature inside dies."?  

Boring?  Quite possibly.  Not the best answer, most definitely.  But wrong?  I don't think so.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 26, 2008)

There's nothing offensive about that passage in the DMG. It's sound advice.

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.  

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??


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> But that's not really the issue though. Sure, all DM's have to improvise sometimes. That's not in question here.






Hussar said:


> The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability? We're not talking about blowing an encounter or two, we're talking, by the quote in the DMG, and entire adventure.




Uhm…yes, now let me also say that I don’t believe any adventure can be *totally* ruined by something like this. The encounters, traps, etc. can all be adjusted, reused, re-skinned or tweaked and still be presented to the PC’s in a different context…IMHO of course.




Hussar said:


> Gizmo appears stuck on the idea that the DM is lying and cheating. Yet, if the DM has absolute control over the game world, then how is he cheating. He states that the spell did not work because the description the players gave was not thorough enough. That's working within the letter of the rules. The spell does state that you have to be very specific.



 
Ok, the DM does have (in most cases) absolute control over the game world…yet he also has certain responsibilities with regards to his players and their knowledge in interacting with said world. If he’s arbitrarily stating a certain description is not adequate… yet the PC and in fact everyone at the table feels it was adequate enough, it can have certain ramifications…one, that the spell is now not considered to be worth it to anyone once they realize it has to be more exact than what they believed, and thus it is not used (so you should have just eliminated it anyway.), even though the DM may have felt it was adequate and was just unprepared. Or another PC could later give an even less adequate description, but because the DM is prepared he succeeds, but now the PC who failed feels he is being picked on…or worse, players start to feel less trust and cohesion in the DM’s rulings.




Hussar said:


> Is it the best solution? Nope. Not by a long shot. The best solution would be for the DM to be able to extemporize an entire session out of his head and make it interesting for the entire group. That would be absolutely fantastic if everyone could pull it off.






Hussar said:


> Unfortunately, most of us can't. Sure, we all might have that one or two session that we pulled everything out of our hat and everything worked great. I'm also absolutely sure that we've all tried it and fallen flat on our faces.




Or the DM (if he’s not good at improvisation) could, you know…actually talk to his players and tell the truth, I mean as a player I would have much more respect for a DM who owns up and states he wasn’t expecting something than one who lies and places the blame on me. It also helps avoid the problems I cited in the answer to your question above. 




Hussar said:


> Remember, the quote is not saying "do this every time to keep the players on your tightly scripted tracks". That is absolutely not what it's saying. What it IS saying is, "if, despite reading this advice, you choose to ignore all of it, and screw up and forget about some ability your PC's have, then you have the power as DM to nerf that ability". Note it does not say that you should do this. It ONLY says that you have the authority to do so.





And it really shouldn’t state this…it’s akin to saying in the end you really have the right to do what you want in the name of preserving what you as DM believe would be the most fun for the entire group… regardless of what the others might think is the most fun, oh yeah and it’s ok to the blame the player…if it helps you preserve “fun” (how fun is it for that player though?). Sorry, just not good advice.




Hussar said:


> Is anyone actually challenging what's written here, rather than what people seem to think is written here?



 
And are you defending what you are interpreting? Numerous people have read your entire quote posting…and in the end felt it was still bad advice…I haven’t seen you state why it’s better than the other alternatives offered by others.




Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?



 
I think he doesn’t have the “right” to set up expectations and rules that define how the PC’s are able to interact with the world…and then arbitrarily change them, and instead of being honest about it…claim the PC’s interpretation of those expectations were wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

Mallus said:


> The whole passage boils down to: don't let divination spells ruin your adventure.




There are three ways to absolutely avoid divination spells from ruining your adventure that I can think of off the top of my head.

1.  Don't have divinations spells.

2.  Don't be so married to your vision of how your adventure is supposed to play out that the players gaining additional information ruins it.

3.  Nerf 'em when you think they'll ruin your adventure. 



> What's wrong with that DMG passage again??




Of the three choices above, 1 & 2 are perfectly acceptable, IMHO, whereas 3 is never acceptable.  Suggesting 3, even in context of other advice, is never acceptable.


RC


----------



## Mean DM (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The question is, should you throw out your entire adventure simply because you didn't take into account a player ability?




Yes.  Player's abilities, intellegence, or sheer luck should always trump a GM's plans IMO.  Don't rob a player when your creativity is out-maneuvered by his brilliance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

Mean DM said:


> Player's abilities, intellegence, or sheer luck should always trump a GM's plans IMO.  Don't rob a player when your creativity is out-maneuvered by his brilliance.




This.

Absolutely this.

And +XP to you!


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Gizmo appears stuck on the idea that the DM is lying and cheating. Yet, if the DM has absolute control over the game world, then how is he cheating. He states that the spell did not work because the description the players gave was not thorough enough. That's working within the letter of the rules. The spell does state that you have to be very specific.




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.  

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.



Hussar said:


> Is it the best solution? Nope. Not by a long shot. The best solution would be for the DM to be able to extemporize an entire session out of his head and make it interesting for the entire group. That would be absolutely fantastic if everyone could pull it off.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of us can't. Sure, we all might have that one or two session that we pulled everything out of our hat and everything worked great. I'm also absolutely sure that we've all tried it and fallen flat on our faces.




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.



Hussar said:


> Remember, the quote is not saying "do this every time to keep the players on your tightly scripted tracks". That is absolutely not what it's saying. What it IS saying is, "if, despite reading this advice, you choose to ignore all of it, and screw up and forget about some ability your PC's have, then you have the power as DM to nerf that ability". Note it does not say that you should do this. It ONLY says that you have the authority to do so.




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.



Hussar said:


> Is anyone actually challenging what's written here, rather than what people seem to think is written here?




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.  



Hussar said:


> Does anyone actually think that DM's do not have the authority to over rule game effects from time to time?




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.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Unless my word is law - in which case the Core Rules of DnD could be A LOT shorter.



I think you're on to something there.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Hussar said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo, I don't think this latest post is helping your argument very much.


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 26, 2008)

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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

"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 (Dec 26, 2008)

> 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.



gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> 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


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

rjdafoe said:


> 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.)




DMG:  "don't let them short circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either."

That's not an example.  That's advice.  And then the example proceeds to demonstrate use of the advice.  An example to demonstrate advice does not make that big of a difference between the two.



rjdafoe said:


> is that if this were 3.5 and it the quote was replaced by something like:




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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

rjdafoe said:


> "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?




With the exception that the first pronoun (that) has no antecedent, the above statement is perfectly comprehensible.  Context is needed only to provide the antecedent and, perhaps, to support the conclusion.

However, the fact that Gizmo33's other posts provide that context is not in any way evidencary that any surrounding text provides context.  For example, this post provides no context to the above statement at all.  It only provides information/discussion about the meaning of "context" itself.

RC


----------



## Leif (Dec 26, 2008)

Sure, why not?  I'll add my voice to the opinions expressed.

First of all, someone must have done some extensive editing of posts here, because I see nothing that qualifies as 'vitriol.'  It just looks to me like a legitimate issue with the way some games are run.  And I, and probably the vast majority of ENWorlders with significant D&D experience, have seen just this sort of game and even volunteered to play in them and continued to play even when I knew that this was likely to keep happening.  Why?  Because Iwas desperate to play D&D and there few, or no, alternative games.  Having said that, I have also experienced DMs who are at the other extreme of the "control spectrum," and who would let players basically do anything that they could imagine and justify in game terms.

Between the two, I must say that the PERMISSIVE DMs run much more satisfying and fun games, IMHO.  And I caution all DMs against a draconic refusal to permit the success of a character's power that you have previously allowed him to gain.  And, therein lies the real crux of the matter:  Why would you, as DM, EVER let a character gain a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you were not willing to let him fully exploit to the limit of his logic?  And why, oh why, should he be punished for using what you have voluntarily allowed him to have?  Who is really at fault here???

And that's the real solution here: After you identify a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you have a problem with, DISALLOW it from the game BEFORE a character gains possession of it.  In the immortal words of Barney Fife, *"Nip it, nip it in the Bud!"*  Problem solved.

Ok, that's it for me.  Thanks for listening/reading, and thanks for not venting at me for expressing my opinion.   Feel free to disagree, but please don't vent.  It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Scrying spells, and this basic issue in general, have existed in all editions.  There is no edition war to be found here..




Indeed.  I could point out some advice in the 1e DMG that I think is very questionable.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 26, 2008)

I think a good rule of thumb is, "The more important the outcome of a die roll/ruling is, the less permissible it is to fudge the roll/ruling."

YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## Cryptos (Dec 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are three ways to absolutely avoid divination spells from ruining your adventure that I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> 1.  Don't have divinations spells.
> 
> ...




Or the best method:

4) Don't base your plots on what the characters will find out and how, but rather on what happens _when_ they find out.

The example that springs to mind immediately, because that's what I'm reading right now, is basically any Dresden Files novel.  While the main character doesn't necessarily get all the details of the whos and whats or whys down until the very end, he gets a general sense of what is going on toward the middle (or sometimes even the beginning) of the story.  He almost always knows where they bad guys are, so that's never an issue.  But when he picks up the general plot, that's when everything goes crazy.  Because knowing that one thing tells the character what they're up against and propels them toward bigger challenges, and creates a dozen more questions, as well.

There's a whole movie that follows "Luke, I am your father."  Realistically, it could have been written in a way that this information could have been revealed in the beginning of A New Hope and still had a thrilling story with some pieces of the puzzle left unsolved for the next two movies.

In the linear model of dungeon design, you often have the big fight in the last room, which comes along with a big reveal just to keep it interesting.  DMs would do well to learn to put their plot twists toward the beginning or middle of a campaign or adventure, to allow the players the chance to find or figure it out early and think about how that knowledge gets them deeper into trouble.  You can keep the big climatic battle in the "back room on the bottom level", but keep the big reveal fluid and let them figure it out or discover it at any point in the game.

If you're concerned about divination, it would probably be wise to chart things out so that if you have to answer one question, you know what new questions arise out of that answer.  If they find out where, then they might need to also find out why.  If they find out who, then it might be a good idea to discover "what", as well.  If they find out that Duke Blackthorne is in Bloodwinter Castle, and that Duke Blackthorne summoned the demons, make it important to know why he did that, to know what else he might have summoned, to know why he is where is he, why it's not a good idea for the PCs to go marching straight for it, who else is involved, and so forth.

In short, for every answer you're worried that the PCs could uncover with divination, create a list of new questions and complications that you can raise by providing them with that information, and make sure you deliver that information in such a way that the new questions and complications are apparent.

Instead of allowing divinations to provide shortcuts through the story, use them as plot hooks that drive them down deeper into the story.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 26, 2008)

Leif said:


> Why would you, as DM, EVER let a character gain a power/ability/skill/magic item/etc. that you were not willing to let him fully exploit to the limit of his logic?  And why, oh why, should he be punished for using what you have voluntarily allowed him to have?  Who is really at fault here???




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


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> 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.




That point, when I read it strictly, is not really what I'm talking about AFAICT.  Of course the "context" of my own post was the joking title of "part 1 of 1000" which would lead one to reasonably believe that I have 1000 things I don't like about the 4E DMG.  One could readily, but I would argue not logically, conclude that I don't like anything in the 4E DMG.

There are a number of statements that you can make about the 4E DMG and they are not all equivalent to me, though they seem equivalent to other folks.  One statement is:  *there exists* bits of good advice within the DMG.  This is different than statements like "everything in the DMG is good" and "nothing in the DMG is good."

If I wanted to talk about my overall assessement of the DMG in any kind of meaningful way, I personally would choose to build up my position from a basis of sub-points.  But I can't even reach a common understanding of the words "context", "lying", and so on with many folks.  If a person cannot even see how I can take exception to this one section of the DMG, then the other places in the DMG where the same things happen aren't going to be explicable either.  And a statement like "I don't think the 4E DMG is in the top-half of DMGs ever written" is unsubstantiated.



Rel said:


> This in particular struck me as an unfair characterization if your intent is to link the interpretation to the bothersome bit in the OP.




The link was not what was intended by the author, to be sure.  But that's actually one of my points.  

Seems to me that people's *principles* and *habits* are not always in agreement.  It is would not be unfair, IMO, if I were speaking with James Wyatt directly, to bring up this very point:  How can you call rolling a d20 to determine success/failure to be a "core mechanic" of the game - when your example regarding a *pivotal moment of an adventure* involves a DM completely trumping the actions of a player through DM fiat (even setting aside the lying part).  

What does he really mean by "monkey wrench" anyway?  That vagueness could very well consitute all sorts of discomfort on the part of the DM.  And given the other parts of the DMG that advocate making sure that most events in the game are of some meaning (don't have players wandering around aimlessly "looking for the adventure"), I think it's reasonable to suspect that the advice given in this section covers a lot of parts of the game.

And thus, I really don't find my statement about the "core mechanic" to be unfair.

You see - if you write a DMG that includes bits of unsubstantiated advice like "don't be unfair to the players" but then your examples and implementations and specifics range from manipulative to down-right dishonest, then I think it's fair for me to take that seriously.  Granted, I need to establish those places that I think are dishonest, which I've tried to take a small step in doing.

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.)


----------



## Leif (Dec 26, 2008)

Cryptos said:
			
		

> Or the best method:
> 
> 4) Don't base your plots on what the characters will find out and how, but rather on what happens when they find out.
> 
> ...




Excellent advice, Cryptos!!  Have you received an invitation from Wizards yet to co-author DMG II?  Watch your mail, man!   No, seriously, I have no knowledge or authority regarding such, but your post is most incredibly excellent and informative!  Most, if not all, DMs would do well do heed what it says, and strive to live up to the ideals expressed therein.  Kudos!


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 26, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> With the exception that the first pronoun (that) has no antecedent, the above statement is perfectly comprehensible. Context is needed only to provide the antecedent and, perhaps, to support the conclusion.
> 
> However, the fact that Gizmo33's other posts provide that context is not in any way evidencary that any surrounding text provides context. For example, this post provides no context to the above statement at all. It only provides information/discussion about the meaning of "context" itself.
> 
> RC





What I am saying is take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of the bits of a few sentences.  Too often, in todays world, we don't take the time to take a step back and see what is going on.  It does matter what context it is.  Just in his posts, he is implying that by reading that, it gives you permission to lie to and cheat your player's every chance you get.  That is not what it is saying. , if you take a look at the big picture.  It gives a problem, and a solution.  Take the problem and solution in context with the surrounding items, and you get a clear picture of the whole thing.

But that is just me, I tend to look at the whole thing, not just a corner of the picture and say, hey, that sucks.

I think there is other stuff to be upset over in the 4th edtion books than this example.  I would have left this at number 1000 instead of number 1.


----------



## Leif (Dec 26, 2008)

Maggan said:


> 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.
> ...



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


----------



## rjdafoe (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Maggan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (Dec 26, 2008)

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?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

rjdafoe said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

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 (Dec 26, 2008)

DandD said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> 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?



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> 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.


----------



## DandD (Dec 26, 2008)

Shadeydm said:


> 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...



Oh, don't worry, I can deal with that, if the game master says that we haven't been specific enough, and I don't even feel angry or so. 
You can deal with that too, I'm sure.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

DandD said:


> 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 almost get the impression that D&D is a pre-scripted story upon which rules and mechanics are disregarded in the name of preserving a type of “fun” for me that I must be protected from destroying at all costs by my DM…and not a *game* in which DM’s *and[/PC’s* create a shared make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons all brought about organically through the gameplay at the table… See how that works both ways?




DandD said:


> 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.



 
Yes I would, it is all dependent upon what the specific changes are.   I don’t choose abilities for my PC because I don’t want them to work…that is the fun right there, being clever with an ability and watching it succeed or fail by the roll of a die…not playing in a game where my character is affected by random failure with the reasoning by the DM of… “just because I said so.”.


----------



## Shadeydm (Dec 26, 2008)

Dealing with it isn't really the issue. If the ritual suddenly works in matter other than it did the other times you used it, yet nothing has changed this creates an unwarranted change in things for no better reason than I'm too lazy to work around this and unwilling to simply tell the truth.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Leif said:


> 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.




In fact, if my "experience" has any bearing here, it's taught me how to handle the unknown in ways that aren't as lazy as "no, you can't."  In fact, plenty of people on both sides of this issue have given much better advice than what's given in the DMG here.  

It's such a big part of the game, it's such a shame to me that the DMG misses the opportunity to actually demonstrate prior assertions and good advice.  As the game continues to grow, with new classes and powers and magic items, and such, the chances for something happening that the DM doesn't forsee increases.  Especially in 4E where the player can seemingly place his finger at a random page in the magic item list and say "I want this" and get it (either through Enchant Item, or the humorously conceived "treasure parcel.")


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

I honestly do not see a problem with what Mr. Wyatt wrote in the DMG. He isn't telling the DM to lie to his players, he is merely saying that if a ritual (such as Observe Creature) could throw off the whole adventure/campaign, the DM is well within his right to require the players to be very specific.

This still means that if the players are brilliant, the ritual works. Because if they are brilliant, they do not come with an half-arsed description that leaves room for any doubt. 

An example. The players are investigating a plot to kill the King. They suspect that one of the King's two pet mages is involved in the plotting. Other gathered intel suggest that the plotters will be meeting the same night at an unknown place. At the time of the meeting, the players cast Observe Creature to scry on the pet mage in order to figure out if he is involved. Problem is, they do not have a lot of information about the pet mages.

Mr. Wyatt doesn't tell us that a DM should make the ritual fail no matter what. He tells us that if the players do not come up with a very specific description which leaves no doubt as to which pet mage (in this case) they mean, then the DM is well within his rights to have the ritual fail (in this case, they would get to scry on the other pet mage).

I see nothing wrong with that. And I am a DM for 20 years, and for more than 14 or 15 years, I have been rolling everything (just about) out in the open. Not only do I roll in the open, but the whole core of my DM style is that I have no qualms about scrapping 50 hours of preparation if players decide to do something else or if they pull the rug on me. 

But I still do not see the issue some people seem to have. I agree that a DM shouldn't lie to his players, nor cheat them of the use of their powers. But that is simply not what Mr. Wyatt is saying. At least not as I read it.

Merry Xmas everyone.


----------



## Leif (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> In fact, if my "experience" has any bearing here, it's taught me how to handle the unknown in ways that aren't as lazy as "no, you can't."  In fact, plenty of people on both sides of this issue have given much better advice than what's given in the DMG here.



Yes, indeed, but, again you pre-suppose a DM who has at least _some_ relevant gaming experience.  The true neophyte DM may not have the experience nor the confidence necessary to pull off that sort of thing.  As applied to DMs with at least a minimum amount of experience, I totally agree with you.  But, if our hobby continues to grow as we hope that it will, then there will always be those DMs who do not fall into that category.  (At least not at first, anyway.)


----------



## DandD (Dec 26, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I almost get the impression that D&D is a pre-scripted story upon which rules and mechanics are disregarded in the name of preserving a type of “fun” for me that I must be protected from destroying at all costs by my DM…and not a *game* in which DM’s *and[/PC’s* create a shared make-believe-fantasy story with elves, dwarves, knights and wizards fighting dragons hidden in dungeons all brought about organically through the gameplay at the table…



I know now that you really are of the type of players who need the feeling to "win" against the game master, because eyeballing it once must be the proof that he's just a bastard and incompetent fool who should admit being a loser. I mean, if that's how you see your game master (an enemy player out there to destroy your fun) , than perhaps there's something more wrong than just that , doesn't it? 


> See how that works both ways?



Nah, because it's true. 
Now how do you feel about that?
You're there to have fun together with the game master and the other players, and if the inexperienced player having the role of the game master doesn't have contingencies prepared nor is really that good at improvising, it's okay for once. He'll improve, and will know  it in the future (or let another player take up the mantle of the game master).  


> Yes I would, it is all dependent upon what the specific changes are.   I don’t choose abilities for my PC because I don’t want them to work…that is the fun right there, being clever with an ability and watching it succeed or fail by the roll of a die…not playing in a game where my character is affected by random failure with the reasoning by the DM of… “just because I said so.”.



There is nothing random about the game master saying that it doesn't work, because in this specific example, he says that for the specific reason that he hasn't come up with something to counter his prepared adventure being mitigated by that so fast. Especially if the game master is only recently a game master, and they're all playing D&D for the first time, which is why the new player seeks advice in the Dungeon Master's Guide section about game preparations.  


Shadeydm said:


> Dealing with it isn't really the issue. If the ritual suddenly works in matter other than it did the other times you used it, yet nothing has changed this creates an unwarranted change in things for no better reason than I'm too lazy to work around this and unwilling to simply tell the truth.



But there is a reason. The ritual didn't work because it wasn't "specific" (a very vague word in this context, ha). It's up to the game master to add what specific detail the should-have-been-scryed person or location has in comparison with other persons and locations that could be scryed. Might work for the inexperienced game master seeking advice in that book for game masters.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

DandD said:


> I know now that you really are of the type of players who need the feeling to "win" against the game master, because eyeballing it once must be the proof that he's just a bastard and incompetent fool who should admit being a loser. I mean, if that's how you see your game master (an enemy player out there to destroy your fun) , than perhaps there's something more wrong than just that , doesn't it?
> Nah, because it's true.
> Now how do you feel about that?
> You're there to have fun together with the game master and the other players, and if the inexperienced player having the role of the game master doesn't have contingencies prepared nor is really that good at improvising, it's okay for once. He'll improve, and will know it in the future (or let another player take up the mantle of the game master).
> ...





Huh?... Uhm, what ... I don't understand most of this so I won't comment on it.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Here's an excerpt from the PHB page 10 paraphrased:

"Dave (DM):  Isidro is pretty stealthy. (Dave compares Isidro's Stealth check result to the Perception check result of the monsters he knows are in the next room.  Camp's roll beats the Perception check, so the monsters don't know the halfling is there.)"

What is should say is 
"Dave acts like he's interested in Isidro's Stealth result, but ignores it.  For you see, if Isidro manages to sneak past the guards, he can very well stand a chance of assassinating the BBEG and thereby ruining the entire adventure!  So as you continue to read the PHB, keep in mind that all of these rules only apply to a certain point, and when important plot events that the DM has his heart set on are at stake, expect him to completely over-rule whatever you're trying to have your character do.  And don't expect him to be honest about it either."

Dave (DM):  You fail.  The guards hear you.
Cam:  Why?
Dave (DM):  Well, because you take a -10 for running.
Cam:  But I didn't say I ran!  You just told me how stealthy I was!
Dave (DM):  But you didn't say you didn't.  And I'm the DM.  So you are running, and you fail.
All of the Players, including Cam:  Bravo Dave!  Thank the gods you saved us from a miserable night of gaming.  Things are so much more exciting when you stop us from boring ourselves by overcoming challenges in a way that you didn't anticipate.
Toby:  Yea, remember that time when I attacked Orcus and you told me I forgot to mention that I used my sword?  That's was great too.  Then Orcus teleported away and was a reoccuring villain.  You could have cut the tension with a knife.  "When is Dave going to decide that we're allowed to kill Orcus" was all I kept thinking all week.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

DandD said:


> But there is a reason. The ritual didn't work because it wasn't "specific" (a very vague word in this context, ha).




But that's not the reason.  In fact, the DMG makes it pretty clear what the reason is.  What you're talking about is the *explanation given to the player*, which is not the reason, which I why I describe it as lying.

Because if it was a matter of the player not being specific enough, then the paragraph could have simply described the description the player gave, and why it fell short.  But the whole *context* makes it obvious that this is not the case.

"don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either"

The motivation is not that the player failed to meet the conditions of the ritual.  Heck, if the PC was 3rd level and didn't even have the Observe Creature ritual, wouldn't that fit here?  No, it doesn't because that's not the point of the paragraph.  The point is "the player is doing something that you didn't anticipate, so make it look like a rules adjucation, even though it's nothing of the kind.  In spite of much of the other advice in the book.  And I'm not going to explain the reason I'm contradicting myself here."


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> The motivation is not that the player failed to meet the conditions of the ritual.  Heck, if the PC was 3rd level and didn't even have the Observe Creature ritual, wouldn't that fit here?  No, it doesn't because that's not the point of the paragraph.  The point is "the player is doing something that you didn't anticipate, so make it look like a rules adjucation, even though it's nothing of the kind.  In spite of much of the other advice in the book.  And I'm not going to explain the reason I'm contradicting myself here."




No, that's how *you* read it. Obviously some of us read it differently. But either way, I would agree with that too. If you as a DM feel you must "cheat", it's better to hide the "cheating" behind the rules, instead of saying: No, you can not do that, it would ruin the game. At least if you are an inexperienced DM. But then again, I am sure your mileage varies. However, there is no right or wrong way to DM. Well there is, but it's certainly not as black and white as you seem to think.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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..



Exactly. This issue is one of tension between narrative/story role-playing and adventure role-playing. This tension has been present in D&D since the beginning (particularly in the form of divination magic). D&D isn't structured for narrative/story role-playing, so advice like that quoted creates some conflict with the spirit of the rest of the game and its players.


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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.)




Not that it much matters but I am willing to "concede" that the section that you quote in the OP is (as I think I put it earlier) "pretty crappy advice for a DM".  However I am a benefit of the doubt sort of guy.  I don't see a whole lot else in the DMG that would suggest that this author (or others) have principles at odds with their habits.  I'm willing to allow that this is a bit of advice that is somewhat poorly worded or may simply trend past the edge of what I find advisable for a GM.  It seems to me that most of the advice for DMs in the DMG is pretty good and I say that as somebody who is totally excellent at it.

That is the context that I think other people are talking about.


----------



## Richards (Dec 26, 2008)

Well, this has been a very interesting read, but I am still left hanging, waiting for an answer to a question that was posed on the first post and has me tingling with anticipation:  why _shouldn't_ you follow a 20th-level character up a ladder?

Johnathan


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> Not that it much matters but I am willing to "concede" that the section that you quote in the OP is (as I think I put it earlier) "pretty crappy advice for a DM".




Was it crappy advice when Gary adviced the same thing (if we for a second assume the OP was right) in the 1e DMG?


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> No, that's how *you* read it. Obviously some of us read it differently. But either way, I would agree with that too.




I'm not surprised.  In fact my informal tally of people who agree with me and those who disagree seems to indicate that everyone who disagrees with me also seems to disagree with what I claim that the paragraph is saying, but then strangely also *would* agree with it *were* it saying what I claimed.  



Jack99 said:


> If you as a DM feel you must "cheat", it's better to hide the "cheating" behind the rules, instead of saying: No, you can not do that, it would ruin the game. At least if you are an inexperienced DM.




Why is it better?  Because you can't be honest about how you are conducting the game?  I didn't think honesty and integrity were the domain of just one of the DMing styles.  The players are people - and in my case my peers.  They are not stupid, and they know when I'm lying most of the time (which is something IME chronic liars are not aware of.)  They have no business being lured into a game under the pretenses established in the PHB and then lied to.  This is not a matter of DMing style, this is a matter of honesty.  

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. (An example is hard to give in this case.)



Jack99 said:


> But then again, I am sure your mileage varies. However, there is no right or wrong way to DM. Well there is, but it's certainly not as black and white as you seem to think.




Well, I think this situation is clearer than you're suggesting, obviously.  This isn't about "DMing" exactly or entirely.  This is about how you conduct the game as a person, and how you deal with the other people at the table.  

I admit that I can't judge your motives as a DM in every case.  You make all kinds of rulings with ulterior motives in order to preserve the plot, and I can't say anything about the specifics.  So you're not going to get caught sometimes.  The funny thing about the DMG example though, is that it describes enough of the thought process to make it clear that the DMs explanation is a dishonest rationalization.

Why would you (as a DM) want to hide what you're doing as described in this case?  It contradicts pretty much everything that's established as the point of the game in the PHB.  Obviously I understand that narrativist DMs, and pretty much every DM, has some interests, hopes, expectations, etc. that they want to see fulfilled in the outcomes of the game.  But at what point do you throw out the basic structures of the game, expectations of the players, and even your honesty in order to accomplish this?


----------



## Rel (Dec 26, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Was it crappy advice when Gary adviced the same thing (if we for a second assume the OP was right) in the 1e DMG?




I'll answer first unequivocally and say yes, it was crappy advice then too.  I've met and gamed with Gary and I think he was a hell of a great guy.  He laid the foundations for us all and I'm forever greatful for that.  Still crappy advice in that instance.

However, I will temper this by saying that I think that gaming sensibilities have changed a LOT since then.  The years have taught us many lessons that were far less well established in terms of what works well (most of the time) and what doesn't (most of the time).  Gary was having to write that book without the benefit of those lessons.

I'll also say that, based on my very limited experience of gaming with him (the once), that Gary was unrepentantly "old school" in terms of style.  He might give that same advice today if he were still around.  But I suspect that he'd still run a pretty great game most of the time anyway, just as I'd suspect of James Wyatt.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> It's dishonest to the players as people to suggest that the game is going to be conducted in a certain way, and then turn around and lie to them about what you're doing.



It may be dishonest, but it also may be good DMing practice.  

DMs have to metagame.  There isn't another option.  If you think there is, you're lying to yourself.  I know this because D&D world to isn't a real place.  Someone has to make it up.  You can't logically derive it from some set of first principles.  You can't figure it out from observation of reality.  It is a creation of pure fancy.

If you do actually believe that DMs shouldn't metagame, then you should either 1. never DM ever, or 2. get very good at self deception so that you can convince yourself that your decisions aren't metagaming even though most of them are.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> It may be dishonest, but it also may be good DMing practice.
> 
> DMs have to metagame. There isn't another option. If you think there is, you're lying to yourself. I know this because D&D world to isn't a real place. Someone has to make it up. You can't logically derive it from some set of first principles. You can't figure it out from observation of reality. It is a creation of pure fancy.
> 
> If you do actually believe that DMs shouldn't metagame, then you should either 1. never DM ever, or 2. get very good at self deception so that you can convince yourself that your decisions aren't metagaming even though most of them are.




But metagaming != lying...


----------



## Intense_Interest (Dec 26, 2008)

Imaro said:


> But metagaming != lying...




That's only a semantic difference that is derived from timing, not of intent.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Why is it better?  Because you can't be honest about how you are conducting the game?  I didn't think honesty and integrity were the domain of just one of the DMing styles.  The players are people - and in my case my peers.  They are not stupid, and they know when I'm lying most of the time (which is something IME chronic liars are not aware of.)  They have no business being lured into a game under the pretenses established in the PHB and then lied to.  This is not a matter of DMing style, this is a matter of honesty.



I think it’s better to hide behind the rules than be honest, precisely for the same reason as you claim JW gives the advice. To preserve the plot of the adventure. If I tell a player that his Observe Ritual fails because he would learn something that will ruin my carefully crafted adventure, he will surely know that something is definitely wrong with the person that he is trying to scry. If I on the other hand make it scry someone else or say that the ritual fails due to incorrect description, he will at least be left wondering. As I also said earlier, I would never do such a thing if the player came up with an ironclad description, only if it was vague so that my ruling could be defended in good faith – even if it wasn’t in good faith.



> Well, I think this situation is clearer than you're suggesting, obviously.  This isn't about "DMing" exactly or entirely.  This is about how you conduct the game as a person, and how you deal with the other people at the table.



I think that lying can be part of being a good DM. One could argue that the most important thing about being a DM is that you ensure your players (and yourself) have a good time. If that means you need to fudge a roll or lie about why a ritual failed, I honestly do not see the problem. Of course, such action necessitates that you both know your players very well, and that you have a good idea about what is the most fun for them. My players know I have done this at times, but no one cares. They know I do it for the good of our game, and they trust me as their DM through 20 years (yes, same group) to make the best calls. If we look back at every incident and examine them carefully, I am sure we would find that some of my calls were the wrong ones. No one is perfect, and I am certainly not about to imply that I am. But thinking that somehow my decisions to lie to my players within the parameters of a game should make me a dishonest person is just… well I really do not see what the two have to do with each other. 




> Why would you (as a DM) want to hide what you're doing as described in this case?  It contradicts pretty much everything that's established as the point of the game in the PHB.  Obviously I understand that narrativist DMs, and pretty much every DM, has some interests, hopes, expectations, etc. that they want to see fulfilled in the outcomes of the game.  But at what point do you throw out the basic structures of the game, expectations of the players, and even your honesty in order to accomplish this?






			
				4e PHB page When you perform this ritual said:
			
		

> However, when performing the ritual you must describe your intended subject with sufficient clarity that the ritual unambiguously knows which creature you’re talking about. [/b]This ritual can show you a creature anywhere in the world, but it can’t show you a creature on another plane.
> The magic of the ritual interprets your statement of intended subject in the most straightforward way possible.* If your description is insufficient to determine a specific creature, the ritual fails and no components are expended. If your statement describes a subject other than the one you intended, the ritual still functions and the components are expended.*



This is the relevant part of the ritual. Notice the bolded parts. According to those, a DM who rules (subjective) that your description is either not specific enough or fits someone else, is well within his rights to have the ritual fail or scry on that someone else. I see no changing of pretenses established in the PHB. Since the pretense is that it’s up to the DM to decide if the ritual works correctly.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Was it crappy advice when Gary adviced the same thing (if we for a second assume the OP was right) in the 1e DMG?




Was it crappy advice when Gary Gygax blasted his players with bolts of lightning?   If Gary Gygax jumped off a bridge, would you?  Seriously, why is what Gary Gygax writes even relevant unless appeals to authority count for something.  "I'm a lich and I've DMed for 1000 years so do what I say!"  If Gary had something pertinent to say on the subject and something more substantive than "do what I say" then feel free to quote it.  A bad idea doesn't become a good idea depending on who expresses it.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

Rel said:


> I'll answer first unequivocally and say yes, it was crappy advice then too. I've met and gamed with Gary and I think he was a hell of a great guy. He laid the foundations for us all and I'm forever greatful for that. Still crappy advice in that instance.




Fair enough. We will just agree to disagree. I do not see the problem with DM's cheating. I never do it in combat myself, because this is how my players want it done. But occasionally, I have, because I knew (or thought) it would make for a better game, changes or omitted things players would otherwise have found out about. 20 years and it's never been a problem. I know many of you guys have been playing and DMing much longer, so I am not trying to say that my way is the right way. I am merely trying to point out that for me, and my group, that advice is good advice. And all things considered, I doubt we are the only group that work the way we do.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> That's only a semantic difference that is derived from timing, not of intent.




Okay, seriously, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought...

metagaming is using out of character knowledge within a game (notice you are still using this knowledge within the framework of the game.)...right?  Like knowing that your PC's have a scry spell so you decide your BBEG has taken precautions against a scry spell...like wards and or protective rituals, which can be quantifiably measured...and may even have a way the PC's could still circumvent it.

Lying, well is lying... it's making up a fabrication that has no basis in the rules, your plans or anything else...for all intents and purposes it is altering reality at a whim in the context of the game and a DM.  

IMHO a good liar can make the second appear to be like the first, but a bad liar totally shows the difference between the two. YMMV of course.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> Was it crappy advice when Gary Gygax blasted his players with bolts of lightning?   If Gary Gygax jumped off a bridge, would you?  Seriously, why is what Gary Gygax writes even relevant unless appeals to authority count for something.  "I'm a lich and I've DMed for 1000 years so do what I say!"  If Gary had something pertinent to say on the subject and something more substantive than "do what I say" then feel free to quote it.  A bad idea doesn't become a good idea depending on who expresses it.




I think it's pertinent because *you *mentioned Monte Cook in your OP, and chastised JW for not reading up on what other opinions there was on the matter, as if Cook was anymore an authority than Wyatt. It has nothing to do with following Gygax' advice blindly, at least nothing more than following Cook's advice blindly.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> DMs have to metagame. There isn't another option. If you think there is, you're lying to yourself.




Since when did you guys become such advocates of truth-telling?   So what if I'm lying to myself?  Isn't that a good thing?   Isn't that what's advocated in the DMG anyway?  You must be telling me that i'm a good DM.   Thanks.  Not only am I lying to myself, but I'm lying to you too!  Hey!  I'm an awesome DM! 



Cadfan said:


> I know this because D&D world to isn't a real place. Someone has to make it up. You can't logically derive it from some set of first principles. You can't figure it out from observation of reality. It is a creation of pure fancy.




The actual rules make it very clear what first principles are, and what the outcome should be.  It's just simply a case of the DM not wanting to follow them.  So I think you have no basis for suggesting that somehow this situation was too complicated for the DM not to lie about it.  It was actually very simple, as presented.



Cadfan said:


> If you do actually believe that DMs shouldn't metagame, then you should either 1. never DM ever, or 2. get very good at self deception so that you can convince yourself that your decisions aren't metagaming even though most of them are.




Your premise is not logically related to the issue.  This isn't about metagaming.  Telling the player that he rolled an 18 and he hits is metagaming.  Telling the player that he actually didn't roll an 18, that he really rolled a 2, even though you both saw him roll an 18, is *lying*, and as a previous post has said, is not identical to metagaming.  How you would ever come to the conclusion that I was against metagaming is, I think, without basis.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> It has nothing to do with following Gygax' advice blindly, at least nothing more than following Cook's advice blindly.




I never suggested you follow anyone's advice blindly.  I suggested that you be familiar with reasoning that MC gave on why you shouldn't nerf player abilities out of hand.  Referencing that stood for me having to restate it in it's entirety.  It's the reasoning that matters, not the person.  I mentioned the persons name because many people on this board would know what I was referring to.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> This is the relevant part of the ritual. Notice the bolded parts.




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!


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 26, 2008)

Richards said:


> Well, this has been a very interesting read, but I am still left hanging, waiting for an answer to a question that was posed on the first post and has me tingling with anticipation: why _shouldn't_ you follow a 20th-level character up a ladder?




The consensus was, in the beginning, that no one really wanted to hear part 2 since part 1 was so bad (and personally insulting to Wyatt, and other things).

If I were a good DM, I'd probably just lie to you and claim I made no such statement.  That would help preserve the suspense.    You're wrecking my plot. 

But I'm apparently a bad DM, so I'll make no such claim and instead throw out more of a teaser:
Imagine that you are a first level character travelling with a 20th level character.  You both come to a ladder in the dungeon.  Climbing a ladder is "easy".  (For arguments sake.)  Look at page 42.  The "easy ladder" is going to obviously throw your 1st level character into a chasm.

(And the frightening corollary of this thread is that if the DM wants it to, the "easy" ladder will throw the 20th level character into a chasm as well, but that won't matter because your 1st level character is already dead...)


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 26, 2008)

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.

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.

I had some of my players look at the thread, and then the chapter in the DMG and they all said something like  "This is silly. It's one friggin line.  What's the big deal?  The rest of the chapter helps a new DM in a huge way, and that one sentence isn't that bad."  [Note: two players used more harsh language in their assessment] 

I am glad I have my players.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> /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 (Dec 27, 2008)

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 (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Hussar said:


> 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.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2008)

Let me ask it a different way Gizmo.

Does the DM have the power to adjudicate effects in the game?  Does he have that power or must he abide by the letter of the rules 100%?


----------



## Darkthorne (Dec 27, 2008)

Yeah I would have to agree that the passage is written poorly and should have been phrased MUCH better. I think one of the main issues with how a noticeable amont of advice in 4E as a whole is that it is contradictory in who it is supposed to be giving advice to. Most of the experienced DM's don't need every little bit spelled out for them but where 4e is supposed to cater to NEW players there are gaping holes or questionable advice. I've seen time & time again people focus on just a sentence or two and use it as a justification for their shortfalls "SEE!!! It says right here, it says I can stop that fom working!" 

Do I believe that was JW's original intent? No. Do I think that can set up a bad precedent? Easily. I don't think people (designers) took the time to stop and say to themselves "Am I explaining this to someone with at least over 5 yrs gaming experience or am I explaining this to someone who can't grab a 4-sider blindfolded?". My opinion is a good amount was done with people knowing how each other thinks and what they see as common sense or the expected end result. It's like getting driving directions from someone who lived their whole life in one city and tells you "It's right across from the flower shop" and what is across from the flower shop is a seafood shack not the cemetary that you need to be at on time (Yes this is true and it was 1.5 miles further down the road). What they mean and what you are told are two different things.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 27, 2008)

Kraydak said:


> Learning to roll with the punch is vital.  Any advice for new DMs which argues against adapting is teaching bad DMing skills.



This is why the next section of the DMG is called "improvisation".

Some posters in this thread seem to be operating under the assumption that _every_ piece of advice in the DMG needs to apply in _all_ circumstances. This is a bad assumption. Advice that says it's okay to nerf a ritual occasionally (or interpret its results in a way that isn't favorable to the players) does not contradict the more general advice to run a transparent campaign that adapts to player choices.

In other news, drinking alcohol on occasion is okay. Drinking alcohol constantly is not. This also isn't a contradiction.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Dec 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Metagaming is using out of character knowledge within a game (notice you are still using this knowledge within the framework of the game.)...right?  Like knowing that your PC's have a scry spell so you decide your BBEG has taken precautions against a scry spell...like wards and or protective rituals, which can be quantifiably measured...and may even have a way the PC's could still circumvent it.
> 
> Lying, well is lying... it's making up a fabrication that has no basis in the rules, your plans or anything else...for all intents and purposes it is altering reality at a whim in the context of the game and a DM.




Well, first, I was using "lying" in the sense in what you were reacting to, not the broad-brush stroke that might get used later in the discussion; specifically, fudging or shafting a use or result of a player's ability.  

And, in the scheme of things, an ad hoc rules-barrier of Ward Ritual or Magic Tidal Forces have the same result whether you planned for it or not- so yes, the difference between Metagaming and Fudging is timing.

That said, I think the advice, in context, is great because Push-The-Button Scry spells are bad Narrativism in the first place.  Pathos, sure, but telling the player he can't use his Instant Shortcut isn't an insult, it is a challenge.


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 - You wouldn't! First of all, what rights? What right does a person (DM or not) have to lie to another person about what they've done. He didn't put this in character terms. He said the player didn't something that didn't conform to the rules for Observe Creature. This is not the case at all. It wasn't the players actions that dictated this outcome - and lying to the player and telling him that it was IMO is extremely rude.




Indeed.

This appear to be one piece of advice that one of the most rued books since the advent of 3e (Epic Level Handbook) gets right. To wit: don't skirt around player abilities, but reward/require their use.


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2008)

Lizard said:


> If you don't wany scrying, just make sure the ritual doesn't exist in your world. Pretty simple. But giving players a tool and then saying "Well, you can't use it when it would really be helpful" is stunningly wrong.




Exactamundo.

I can understand that DMs want to make plots without having to worry about certain sorts of magic. But letting players take spells and abilities expecting to use them and slyly sabotaging them is not cool in my book.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:


> Well, first, I was using "lying" in the sense in what you were reacting to, not the broad-brush stroke that might get used later in the discussion; specifically, fudging or shafting a use or result of a player's ability.
> 
> And, in the scheme of things, an ad hoc rules-barrier of Ward Ritual or Magic Tidal Forces have the same result whether you planned for it or not- so yes, the difference between Metagaming and Fudging is timing.
> 
> That said, I think the advice, in context, is great because Push-The-Button Scry spells are bad Narrativism in the first place.  Pathos, sure, but* telling the player he can't use his Instant Shortcut isn't an insult, it is a challenge.*




Emphasis mine... IMHO, that is just backwards thinking... and smacks of DM knows best what your fun should be arrogance.  How about if as a player I selected abilities because... surprise, surprise... I want to use that ability.  And how about if I as a DM take 2 minutes to look over my players character sheets and actually design challenges around the abilities that they have chosen (to have "fun" with).   Wait no, because it really is easier to just nerf or lie and counteract what doesn't vibe with the story  *I*  want to create.  

Now yeah it could be a one time thing, but it has also become a tool (and a bad one at that) which I've added to my DM repertoire, and more than likely will be used again by me if I get into another situation I am unprepared for.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Some posters in this thread seem to be operating under the assumption that _every_ piece of advice in the DMG needs to apply in _all_ circumstances.




I can't speak for others (although some, apparently, have that gift), but I see a great difference between advice that is okay in some circumstances, and advice that is never okay.  The advice to nerf a PC power, and then tell the player that it didn't work because the player did it wrong, is IMHO _*never*_ okay.

Of course, this isn't new to 4th Edition.  1e has advice which is similar (never okay), advice about bolts from the blue (never okay), etc., etc.  I don't even want to get started about 2e, because following the advice in that DMG almost made me quit the game.  I can't recall any bad advice offhand in the 3e DMG, but I bet I'd find some if I looked.  I can certainly find some bad advice in other 3e books!  Bad advice is pretty universal.

Again, an argument that X is taken out of context requires some additional material Y that modifies the meaning of X in some way.  Context is important......but not everything adds context simply by the virtue of being surrounding text.  

The material surrounding the quote the OP made is additional advice, but it is not contextually important to the quote the OP pulled because it does not modify the meaning of that quote.

It would modify the meaning of that quote if it gave you parameters, say, for when you should nerf, or why you should tell the player that he didn't do it right.  It would still be bad advice, but the complete thought of the bad advice would require the surrounding text to be fully appreciated.

Thus, Gary Gygax's bad advice about bolts from the blue requires the surrounding text to fully appreciate (because that text tells you the circumstances under which Gary says you should zap PCs), but it is still bad advice.

Bad advice happens.  Accept it.  Embrace it.  Laugh about it.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Dec 27, 2008)

Psion said:


> Exactamundo.
> 
> I can understand that DMs want to make plots without having to worry about certain sorts of magic. But letting players take spells and abilities expecting to use them and slyly sabotaging them is not cool in my book.



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?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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?




There is certainly a middle ground where scrying doesn't work due to an NPC ability, say, to block said scrying.  Or, say, a % chance that scrying will always fail.

Let's look at a system where the players know that there is a 50% chance that scrying will fail.  The PCs pay X resources to scry, and then roll the dice.  If their scrying fails, they then have a meaningful choice -- should I pay X again for another attempt?

Let's look at a system where NPC abilities include a spell to block scrying.  The PCs attempt scrying and it fails.  The PCs now have meaningful information -- the target is concerned about scrying, and the target is powerful enough (or has powerful enough friends) to cast this spell.  If the spell is high level, the players also know that at least one spell slot is used (in a Vancian system).

Let's look at a system where the scry fails, but the PCs do not know why.  They have the option to try again, but they have no reason to believe that their actions can make another attempt succeed.  They are now presented with a mystery that the DM ought to be able to explain, which they ought to be able to uncover when they defeat the villian.

Finally, let's look at a system where the DM simply nerfs the ability, and tells the players that they weren't specific enough.  Doesn't that encourage the players to spend X resources again in an attempt to be more specific?  Doesn't that take any meaningful benefit from the ritual (meaningful choice, information, mystery) from the ritual, leaving the PCs penalized for using their abilities wisely?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Good game design/advice doesn't include making smart play opposed to satisfying play.  Good advice in a DMG is advice that makes smart decisions satisfying to the players.  Sometimes that means that an adventure cannot proceed the way the DM envisioned it, and that is absolutely okay.  

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.


RC


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Psion said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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?



Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Psion said:


> 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 (Dec 27, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> 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?


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 27, 2008)

Kraydak said:


> The advice should have been: do your homework.  If you blow it, suck it up and treat it as a learning experience.




As a teacher, I couldn't possibly agree more with Kraydak's advice.



catsclaw227 said:


> A very good point, but one that is often lost on new DMs.  I think the advice (repeating the mantra: while poorly written) helps the newbie DM with that one time where his preparation time isn't wasted.




Folks say often that the DMG's advice is aimed primarily at new DMs. That being the case, shouldn't the DMG be giving new DMs good advice?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 27, 2008)

Lizard said:


> 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!".




But, this is pretty much what the paragraph in the DMG is saying.  If the party has spent a week watching him, and they have that +20 on perception checks, then the DM is obviously not going to be caught unawares when they use Observe Creature.  He's going to be well aware and have planned accordingly.  The line in the DMG only applies when the players come out of left field and you're not prepared for it, AND their idea will completely invalidate your entire adventure.



roguerouge said:


> 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.




No, it really, really isn't.  Read the DMG again.  It's saying that if, after spending a significant amount of time making your adventure, the players come out of nowhere with something that you are totally unprepared for, AND if that effect would invalidate your entire adventure, then you have the authority, as the DM, to enforce a ruling THAT IS RIGHT IN THE RULES.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> 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?




Yes, that's what he said. And I didn't modify any less than you guys. 



> *Don’t give the characters less than they’re entitled to*, 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 into 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. *




It's obviously a text that means two different things, depending on how you view certain things. You read one thing, I read another. /shrug


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 27, 2008)

Jack99 hit the nail on the head.

James is trying to say "In a conflict between the rules and making the game fun, go with the latter" Put another way "Don't let spells or rituals run amok in your game and ruin the fun".

What he ended up saying is "DMs, feel free to cheat if it's in your best interest to do so."

11 pages later, I'm sure James would want to take that paragraph back for another shot, but its too late now.

I brought up an example earlier in the thread of ruining a murder-mystery story with Speak with Dead. Now, a good DM knows to rig a corpse so that it knows little. But every once in a while, a PC asks a question so out of left field, the story would be given away by its answer.

Do you answer truthfully? Not the corpse, YOU!

If you lie to preserve your story, are you now screwing your players out of an easy (but well-thought) victory?

If you tell the truth, your adventure goes form a long detailed mystery to basically two encounters (talk to corpse, go get the killer).  Big adventure ruined. 

Replace speak-with-dead for nearly any divination, it doesn't matter. It goes back to my question, is gentle rail-roading (even if it means deceiving your players to keep them from ruining the ending) acceptable if the greater good is a more enjoyable play experience, or should the PCs succeed if they outthink the DM? 

I guess I'm blessed to have a group that tends to be more forgiving. If the latter situation happened (a truthful answer leads to an instant resolve) my players would be upset, so they'd rather me change a few details to keep the story going than have a cheap unsatisfactory resolution based over an 8th level ritual/3rd level spell. 

YMMV, of course. Poorly worded paragraph, but the advice isn't a terrible as some people say it is.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 27, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Finally, let's look at a system where the DM simply nerfs the ability, and tells the players that they weren't specific enough.  Doesn't that encourage the players to spend X resources again in an attempt to be more specific?




I actually went to read the ritual last night and found:



			
				PHB p. 310 said:
			
		

> If your description is insufficient to determine a specific creature, the ritual fails and no components are expended.




So, if you decide to follow this advice under the dire adventure-ruining circumstances, you can at least allow the players to have lost nothing but 1 hour of in-game time.


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Read the ritual again.




I never read the ritual in the first place. Beings that WotC has failed to create a game that interests me in the first place, I certainly don't feel the need to reward them with my money.

So please, spare me the snark of implying some failure of reading comprehension on my part, kthanks? I was making allowances for the fact the ritual might be fine as written, and you turn it into a chance to slam someone. Nice.



> 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.




I sort of think your missing the point. It's not that it's not within the rules. It's that the GM is being encouraged to weasel the definitions in the rules if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived evolution of the plot rather than building flexibility into the adventure so that it doesn't require you to weasel the definition in favor of preserving the almighty plot.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 27, 2008)

Psion said:


> I never read the ritual in the first place. Beings that WotC has failed to create a game that interests me in the first place, I certainly don't feel the need to reward them with my money.
> 
> So please, spare me the snark of implying some failure of reading comprehension on my part, kthanks? I was making allowances for the fact the ritual might be fine as written, and you turn it into a chance to slam someone. Nice.



 Wow. My post was in no way snarky nor insulting. And I was certainly not trying to slam you or anyone else.



> I sort of think your missing the point. It's not that it's not within the rules. It's that the GM is being encouraged to weasel the definitions in the rules if it doesn't fit their pre-conceived evolution of the plot rather than building flexibility into the adventure so that it doesn't require you to weasel the definition in favor of preserving the almighty plot.



[/QUOTE]And I think you are sort of missing the point. The DM is told that once in a while, it's okay to do certain things to avoid ruining an adventure. I mean, let's face it, not everyone comes equally prepared to every game. Not everyone has equal talent for DM'ing and thinking on his feet. So sometimes, a DM that is less prepared or less able to "wing it" might need to take other measures in order to preserve his adventure/campaign.

And I suspect that no amount of repeating ourselves endlessly will change that.

Cheers


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Jack99 hit the nail on the head.
> 
> James is trying to say "In a conflict between the rules and making the game fun, go with the latter" Put another way "Don't let spells or rituals run amok in your game and ruin the fun".
> 
> ...





I think that what makes the advice borderline terrible... is placing the blame on the PC, regardless of if he did or did not specify enough, because you as the DM were caught off guard.  It's a trust issue, and honestly if you're going to lie about why the ritual didn't work... make it ambiguous at first...it just doesn't work, and the PC's don't know how or why.  This perserves your precious plot, gives you time to think of something plausible, invent a new ritual, magic item, etc.  and it stops the blame being placed on the player.


----------



## Psion (Dec 27, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Wow. My post was in no way snarky nor insulting. And I was certainly not trying to slam you or anyone else.




Fair enough, and accepted. But consider in the future that "read it again" is, well, not the most peaceful sounding phrase as carries the implication that the reader's understanding is deficient. Your paragraph would have carried the actual meaning you wished to convey without the unintentional negative tone had you just excluded that sentence.



> And I think you are sort of missing the point. The DM is told that once in a while, it's okay to do certain things to avoid ruining an adventure. I mean, let's face it, not everyone comes equally prepared to every game. Not everyone has equal talent for DM'ing and thinking on his feet.




Sure, there are many tools in the DM toolbelt and times when such techniques are the most expedient and reasonable solution. But suggesting that the DM should shirk impartiality to protect weak plotbuilding and improving skills is not the sort of advice that makes for good GMing in the long run (and as such, pretty poor advice for a book that professes to advise one on running an RPG).

It sort of like what we call kludges in the discipline of programming. Sometimes a kludgy solution is all you have, but you are best to program it correctly.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 27, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I think that what makes the advice borderline terrible... is placing the blame on the PC, regardless of if he did or did not specify enough, because you as the DM were caught off guard.  It's a trust issue, and honestly if you're going to lie about why the ritual didn't work... make it ambiguous at first...it just doesn't work, and the PC's don't know how or why.  This preserves your precious plot, gives you time to think of something plausible, invent a new ritual, magic item, etc.  and it stops the blame being placed on the player.




Which I must agree is generally better advice all around. If you cast Observe Creature on Duke Dunderhead, the ritual better work unless you have a lot of dukes with that surname. If you cast it on the "head of the cult of Orcus" the DM should be able to slam you with non-specifics.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 27, 2008)

> If you lie to preserve your story, are you now screwing your players out of an easy (but well-thought) victory?
> 
> If you tell the truth, your adventure goes form a long detailed mystery to basically two encounters (talk to corpse, go get the killer). Big adventure ruined.




These are not the only two options and the insidious little background thought here sets up this false dichotomy.

You can tell the truth and *adapt your mystery*.

It's not hard.

Improv does it one million times every day.

This is what "Don't get too attached to your plot" means. Your big adventure isn't ruined with some clever player questions. Rather, it is _enhanced_. If your big mystery is ruined with one question, it is up to you to give your players an interesting game despite that. Maybe it's not a mystery anymore -- maybe it's an action-packed battle. Maybe it's a massive assault. Maybe it's a dramatic war. It changes.

If you don't let the players _change_ the adventure with their clever work, it is running on rails. 

When the players might ruin your game with a well-placed question or a sudden crit, it is your job to *adapt the game*, not stop the player. The player gets to change the game. That's the nature of a shared narrative. It's not all up to you.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 27, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> My goodness. Are we still analyzing a single line from the DMG?




Ultimately, everyone who is arguing with me about the interpretation of the passage cannot contradict me that the passage says what I think it says - including you from what I read of your explanation.  But you mask things like the "lying" in terms of more nebulous phrases to make it sound ok, and avoid having to address the facts.

The section I quoted was more than one line.  It was even more than one sentence.  I'm not interested in your player's profanity, that's a back-handed way of introducing a personal attack into this thread and has nothing to do with the substance.  They should count things again, and remain civil when they don't understand stuff.  And othewise I think you should keep their uninteresting behavior to yourself because it's against the rules of the message board AFAICT.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 27, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I actually went to read the ritual last night and found:




Yes, but the advice in the DMG doesn't say, IF the description isn't specific enough, THEN ability doesn't work.  That would have been fine.  Redundant, even.

The advice says, IF the result "would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" THEN you can say "that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."

The only IF in that statement is that the DM's plans are thrown a monkey wrench.  Period.  No matter what else you'd like to insert in there, it is clearly not there in the actual quote.  EDIT:  And shall we please note that the quote doesn't even suggest that the choice must be between nerfing and allowing the adventure to be ruined before the THEN applies.  All that is required is that the DM's plans be thrown a monkey wrench -- things will not proceed as he envisioned.

Can this advice be changed so that the advice becomes good advice?  Sure.  You can do that by changing either the IF conditions of the THEN result.  

But the IF/THEN we are presented with is bad advice.  Claiming that the advice is something other than it is doesn't make it any better advice.  Acknowledging that it is bad advice, though, might lead to better advice in the DMG II....or III.


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 27, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> James is trying to say "In a conflict between the rules and making the game fun, go with the latter" Put another way "Don't let spells or rituals run amok in your game and ruin the fun".




No he says "throw a monkey wrench into YOUR plans".  "You" being the DM.  This has nothing, immediately, to do with ruining the fun.  It's only a series of equivalencies that you create that does this.  And if you think the DMs plans are identical with the fun of the session, then you're really saying that the DMs plans are the only real contribution to the fun of the session.  You're also saying the DM can't improvise in any meaningful way.  There are so many other things that the DM would have to do wrong to "ruin the session" that it wouldn't really be the player "ruining" it.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 27, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> And I think you are sort of missing the point. The DM is told that once in a while, it's okay to do certain things to avoid ruining an adventure.




No!  None of us have missed that point!   Those "certain things" things that you're talking about are lying.  And bad DMing.  So I think we all agree with your assessment here, it's just that your nebulous language conveniently side-steps the core issues.  

So yes, if I completely ignore the *methods* that the DM uses and concentrate on his results, then all of the sudden things *do* seem more benign.



Jack99 said:


> I mean, let's face it, not everyone comes equally prepared to every game. Not everyone has equal talent for DM'ing and thinking on his feet. So sometimes, a DM that is less prepared or less able to "wing it" might need to take other measures in order to preserve his adventure/campaign.




Other measures being...say it with me...lying and bad DMing!   Ok, obviously that's the point of contention.  At least the "bad DMing" part. I think the "lying" part is ok with supporters of the passage in question.  The other parts of the DMG itself make the case for why the proposed solution here is bad DMing.

And everyone who has a functioning brain can "think on their feet."  The DM couldn't find his d20 otherwise.  This is a question of the degree of control that you want, what is appropriate, and what you're willing to resort to in order to achieve that control.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> The section I quoted was more than one line.  It was even more than one sentence.  I'm not interested in your player's profanity, that's a back-handed way of introducing a personal attack into this thread and has nothing to do with the substance.  They should count things again, and remain civil when they don't understand stuff.  And othewise I think you should keep their uninteresting behavior to yourself because it's against the rules of the message board AFAICT.




First, I know you aren't interested in their profanity, so I didn't use masked smileys or other silly ways to cover it up, I was simply stating that their reaction was not as mild or friendly as I put it.  If you think it was a backhanded personal attack, you should probably ask yourself why you feel this way.  I didn't direct their specific reaction to ANY of the individual posters.

Their comments are interesting to ME because I am their DM, their opinions matter.  How are my friends comments -- to me --- against the rules of the message board?  

Their comments are valid as anecdotal evidence that not everyone thinks that the paragraph fragment is a big deal or a clear cut statement that BadDM advice is being given, nor do they agree with your position. They have read the whole thread and their understanding of what is being discussed is perfectly clear. They didn't need to "remain civil" because they weren't posting on the boards (where, I might add, they are more civil than most others), they were talking among friends, and if they want to swear, they can.

Ok, then let me restate... are you still arguing over what amounts to a poorly worded bit of text that is less than a paragraph?   We get it.  The advice is poorly worded.  It should have been clearer.  You want to keep harping on lying and deceit and malicious intent.

Help me understand what you think the intent of the writers were.  Let me ask this.   Which of these do you believe, one or more:

It was the intent of James Wyatt (or whoever wrote this bit) to state..

1. that you should regularly lie to your players whenever you want your story to progress despite the players creative efforts?

2. that you should regularly nerf or squash your players plans whenever they use a game mechanic that could catch you unprepared?

3. that you should lie and say it was the players fault for not using the ritual right, and do this as often as you see fit.

4. that you should lie to your players and nerf their abilities this one time, but still blame it on the player for messing it up.

5. that, despite following the previous pages of advice, if you didn't plan your adventure accordingly, and if a the use of a ritual caught you off guard and it would ruin your entire adventure (either for just tonight or for the long term), that it's OK to interpret the results in a way that keeps the game going in a direction that you can offer the group the most fun?

I am curious what you thought they MEANT to state.  If you know they meant no harm or meant no ill intent for the players, then why make a big deal out of this?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 27, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> First, I know you aren't interested in their profanity, so I didn't use masked smileys or other silly ways to cover it up, I was simply stating that their reaction was not as mild or friendly as I put it.  If you think it was a backhanded personal attack, you should probably ask yourself why you feel this way.  I didn't direct their specific reaction to ANY of the individual posters.
> 
> Their comments are interesting to ME because I am their DM, their opinions matter.  How are my friends comments -- to me --- against the rules of the message board?
> 
> ...





Seeing as how every DMG doesn't come packed with it's own JW to give the DM his "intent" it's about what is on the written page.  In fact I would argue that seeing as how many people think it was either bad advice or wasn't worded well enough to convey anything but bad advice... I would say JW's intent, if it wasn't what is actually written, wasn't conveyed very well to at all through these words and thus it is still a passage of badly written advice.

EDIT: I'm curious, did your players tell you (some using profanity) how sillly it was that you were still participating in, and posting looong replies to a thread where we are still analyzing a single line from the DMG?  I'm just curious?


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 27, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> No!  None of us have missed that point!   Those "certain things" things that you're talking about are lying.  And bad DMing.  So I think we all agree with your assessment here, it's just that your nebulous language conveniently side-steps the core issues.
> 
> So yes, if I completely ignore the *methods* that the DM uses and concentrate on his results, then all of the sudden things *do* seem more benign.
> 
> ...




I am fine with calling it a lie. I have no problem telling lies to my players if it benefits the story/adventure. I very rarely, if ever, do it, but that's another matter. 

Also it's only bad DM'ing according to you. Apparently, Mr James Wyatt, Gary Gygax and at least me think it's okay to lie/cheat *within the game* once in a while. I am sure there are plenty more people out there that agree with us. 

No one is saying that a DM should lie/cheat/nerf his players constantly and all the time. That would indeed be bad DM'ing. But doing it once in a while, that's okay. If needed. You seem to think that even a small lie given within the contest of a game is to be considered as a sin on par with God knows what, and I suspect that is part of the problem. We have a very different attitude towards such things.

Cheers


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Their comments are valid as anecdotal evidence that not everyone thinks that the paragraph fragment is a big deal or a clear cut statement that BadDM advice is being given, nor do they agree with your position.




If I thought all people agreed with me, wouldn't this thread come as a surprise?  Seriously, wouldn't your objections by themselves already prove the point you're stating here?  Did I say that there were only 3 people that disagreed with me, and not 8?  Not 9?

And a further irony is, what, theoretically, would stop you right now from completely lying about your motives for what you wrote about your friends?  The reason the DM in example said what he said was NOT what he told the player.  Why, as some anonymous person on a message board, would I be more entitled to honesty about your motives than the player in the example?

If I take you at your word about your intentions, your statements about your friends feelings are redundant.  And I never intended to prove that the *aren't* players out there that don't mind being lied to.



catsclaw227 said:


> Ok, then let me restate... are you still arguing over what amounts to a poorly worded bit of text that is less than a paragraph?




Not any more.  I'm arguing now about what IMO are weak rationalizations for the aforementioned text.  And that it wasn't poorly worded at all, but instead very obvious about what it was trying to communicate.  Which is why you're defending it AFAICT.   If what was written was "ahfasdlfj", why would you be defending it?



catsclaw227 said:


> We get it. The advice is poorly worded. It should have been clearer. You want to keep harping on lying and deceit and malicious intent.




Actually, you don't seem to "get it".  First of all, I don't don't agree that it was "poorly worded", unless that's what you mean when someone says something foolish - which is not what I think "poorly worded" means.  The conditions established by Wyatt, and his proposed solution, were pretty clear.  

"When a player says something out of character, hit him with a water balloon".  That's not poorly worded.  It's just foolish.

Secondly, harping is completely subjective.  Why aren't you harping on my harping?  That characterization obscures the real issues.  No one is forcing you to read or write anything.

Thirdly, "malicious intent" is not the issue.  The intent of the DM, as I think we all agree, is to protect his plot, and preserve the "fun" of the game.  



catsclaw227 said:


> Help me understand what you think the intent of the writers were.




I think you need to make a distinction between intent and consequences.  If you keep mixing those up, you won't understand what I'm trying to say.  

For example:  If someone is going to drive to work at 150 mph down the highway, and I say "they're going to kill someone".  You arguing about the fact that they didn't *intend* to, and are only trying to get to work quickly, is missing the point.  And if you're so hung up about getting to work on time, that you can't set your alarm, and have no respect for anyone else on the road, and think it's your "right" to act however you want to solve your immediate problem because "your intentions are good", then you are largely missing the point of what I'm saying.



catsclaw227 said:


> Let me ask this. Which of these do you believe, one or more:
> 
> It was the intent of James Wyatt (or whoever wrote this bit) to state..
> 
> 1. that you should regularly lie to your players whenever you want your story to progress despite the players creative efforts?




Strictly speaking, Wyatt said it was ok to lie to them when the conditions that he established existed.  If A then do B.  Whether or not A is a regular occurance in your campaign is something I don't know.  

Also "regularly" depends on the context.  I regularly breathe.  Also regularly sleep.  In a campaign with interesting things going on frequently, I think the DM is going to be confronted with the unknown pretty regularly.



catsclaw227 said:


> 2. that you should regularly nerf or squash your players plans whenever they use a game mechanic that could catch you unprepared?




He didn't say anything about the player's *plans*.  The player had his character do something, and the DMs adjucation of the action had *nothing* to do with either the rules or the definition of "DMing" that was established in the PHB, or the advice on "good DMing" that was described in other sections of the DMG.  The player's action may, or may not have been part of a "plan" - doesn't really matter to what I'm saying.



catsclaw227 said:


> 3. that you should lie and say it was the players fault for not using the ritual right, and do this as often as you see fit.




Yes, there were no limitations put on this action by Wyatt.  "If the player is going to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, do this."  That's pretty much as "often as you see fit."  I'm not arguing that Wyatt is suggesting that you lie to your players for no reason.



catsclaw227 said:


> 4. that you should lie to your players and nerf their abilities this one time, but still blame it on the player for messing it up.




No, not "this one time".  There's nothing in the conditions established that makes the DMs response less likely in the future.  Nothing that makes this situation a unique occurence over the entire career of the DM.  In fact, the conditions are sufficiently broad enough that, as other's have pointed out, they could equally apply to the PCs rolling a bunch of criticals against a BBEG that "throws a monkey wrench into your plan". 



catsclaw227 said:


> 5. that, despite following the previous pages of advice, if you didn't plan your adventure accordingly, and if a the use of a ritual caught you off guard and it would ruin your entire adventure (either for just tonight or for the long term), that it's OK to interpret the results in a way that keeps the game going in a direction that you can offer the group the most fun?




But that really begs the question - because if you HAD been paying attention to the other advice, the actual premise that the DMs plans are the sole definition of what is "fun" is bogus.  The idea that the DM needs to stick to plans conceived a month ago is bogus.  There's so much that's bogus about the very premise that's used to rationalize this recommended action.



catsclaw227 said:


> I am curious what you thought they MEANT to state. If you know they meant no harm or meant no ill intent for the players, then why make a big deal out of this?




For the same reason that my driving late to work analogy describes.  In fact, if all you need to do is INTEND to do good then there is no reason for advice in the DMG, right?  I think we all agree that the DMs intentions were to protect his "plot".  He didn't intend to disrespect the players.  That doesn't make what he did ok.  This is Ethics 101 and is a logical point.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Which I must agree is generally better advice all around. If you cast Observe Creature on Duke Dunderhead, the ritual better work unless you have a lot of dukes with that surname. If you cast it on the "head of the cult of Orcus" the DM should be able to slam you with non-specifics.




No, actually, the ritual won't work if there are counter-magics in place.  Not only the Forbiddance spell, but it is in the spirit of the rules that other rituals/powers/conditions, invented by the DM, splatbooks he uses, etc. exist that can thwart this power.

But your example is completely reasonable and is an example of a fair interpretation of the ritual (barring some of the details).  I don't think anyone, including myself, is arguing that the DM has to let the ritual work *in spite* of the rules.  In fact, that's about as obnoxious as the DMG advice in question.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I am fine with calling it a lie. I have no problem telling lies to my players if it benefits the story/adventure. I very rarely, if ever, do it, but that's another matter.




I agree it is another matter.  And one that logically I would have no reason to think the DM would be honest about anyway.  I would have no logical reason to take seriously an assement from a DM about how often he lies when he believes that he is justified in lying.  The very reasons that he uses to justify lying to his players would be justification for lying to me about his lying as well.



Jack99 said:


> Also it's only bad DM'ing according to you. Apparently, Mr James Wyatt, Gary Gygax and at least me think it's okay to lie/cheat *within the game* once in a while. I am sure there are plenty more people out there that agree with us.




Well, as I've said before, Wyatt had already established *other* principles about what good DMing meant that he AFAICT is contradicting with this bit of advice.  So Mr James Wyatt also disagrees with Mr James Wyatt.  

If you were even vaguely familiar with this thread, you'd know that other folks agree with me on at least some of these issues as well.  This line of yours is really not even "reasoning".   

And this is DnD, there's no King of DnD.  So appeals to authority aren't relevant to me unless you think they made a particularly interesting argument.  And if so, feel free to tell me what it was.

And if you think this advice is ok because James Wyatt gave the advice to you, then follow it.  But why bother pretending to me that your position is based on any reasoning?  Just follow his advice, and don't bother trying to understand what I wrote because I'm not James Wyatt so it doesn't matter, right?


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> The intent of the DM, as I think we all agree, is to protect his plot, and preserve the "fun" of the game.



Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.


----------



## Truename (Dec 28, 2008)

> Also it's only bad DM'ing according to you. Apparently, Mr James Wyatt, Gary Gygax and at least me think it's okay to lie/cheat within the game once in a while. I am sure there are plenty more people out there that agree with us.




Yup, I agree. Except that I wouldn't call it lying or cheating--the DM makes the world, and he can change the world any time he wants, for any reason. He'll get away with it, too, as long as the details the players know don't change.

Players: Scry for the answer!

DM: Ah, crap, didn't think of that, and I don't have anything else planned for the evening. Let's see. I could...

1) Show them whodunnit incriminating himself and make up something else for them to do tonight... perhaps now they'll have to chase him through the sewers as he runs for his life

2) Decide that whodunnit was in disguise and tell them that the ritual didn't work because no one matches the description

3) Change whodunnit and show them 24 seconds of innocent activity

4) Keep whodunnit, decide that he isn't doing anything incriminating at present, and show them 24 seconds of innocence as a red herring

5) Keep whodunnit, show them something incriminating, but make him a pawn of a greater power

6) Say that they only saw whodunnit from behind, or in a dark alley, or something and the ritual didn't work because they didn't provide enough detail

7) Decide that whodunnit has anti-scrying rituals in place, and say that the ritual fails

8) Decide that whodunnit sees the scrying sensor and spins out an elaborate deception

9) and on and on...

All of these seem like fine answers... and they're exactly the same answers I would use if I thought of the scrying possibility in advance. Some are more creative than others, but I don't think any are "bad."

I get the impression that people on the other side of this issue want the DM to come up with the world in advance and then stick with it, acting as a sort of human computer that's simulating the world as the players wend their way it. That's one way to do it, but it's far too much work for me.  My world is like the "Schrodinger's Cat" world described in another thread... any detail I haven't described doesn't yet exist, and I'll change the pieces that don't yet exist at any moment according to what I think will be most interesting and fun.

...And I certainly don't think my way is bad DMing, "cheating," "lying," or any of the other invectives being thrown around in this thread. And yes, it is fun.  Sure, the players burst in on the evil foozle when he has just three rounds before unleasing the Big Bad. Sure, they know such precise timing is unrealistic and that it's all a bit of cinematic trickery. That's okay--we like it that way.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.




I wasn't talking about "this kind of nerfing".  I was talking about the specific quoted example, which described the DMs motivations.  That's not to say that I agree/don't agree with your generalization, it's just outside the scope of what I was referring to.  I've tried to avoid having my reasoning based on a deeper psychoanalysis of what Wyatt's DM "must" have been intending.  I'm instead inclined to accept what he wrote his thought process to be.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Truename said:


> ...And I certainly don't think my way is bad DMing, "cheating," "lying," or any of the other invectives being thrown around in this thread.




"Thrown around"!?  It's plainly what was advocated in the quoted piece.  What YOUR particular actions are isn't even relevant.  So why employ this convoluted logic that seems to twist what was actually written in the DMG and substituted with your OWN advice?  

And now characterize a rather plain definition of the word "lie" as some sort of "invective"?  I think Jack99, someone otherwise "on your side of this" (I guess) has no problem with calling it a lie.  Maybe take up this issue with him?

The term "straw man" gets thrown around too much on the internet, but your argument here is the definition of one.  You want to argue about something that you think is more defensible (your own DMing strategies), rather than what was actually written in the DMG.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, but the advice in the DMG doesn't say, IF the description isn't specific enough, THEN ability doesn't work.  That would have been fine.  Redundant, even.




Actually I was responding to the statement that the loss of resources would discourage players from trying this again. But the text I quoted states that the PCs would not lose any resources (unless time is a valuable resource at the time of the attempt). So I don't see any discouragement in that regard.

Back OT - I think lying is a strong term in this case. Lying is twisting reality. As DM, you create the reality of the world. Deciding that a ritual doesn't work can't be lying, because you dictate what is truth in your world. 

The advice is poorly presented. But all it is really saying is that if your choices are nerfing an ability or having no game to play that night, it is better to play. Is it better to find a way to allow the ability to work and improvise another way to keep the adventure going? Of course it is and the rest of the same chapter tells you so. But sometimes your improv skills fail you. It can especially happen to a new DM. It can happen to a DM with a long resume who has had a week of overtime, kid's karate classes, family get-togethers, date night with the wife and has been up since 4AM when the players pull out the ritual short circuit with time to spare. You're tired and not at your mental best, you only had time to prepare so much and now the players have found a way to end a fun evening early. The one night of the week you get a chance to get away from everything else and kill some monsters and take their stuff and one stupid ritual is going to end it because you can't think your way around it.

The situation presented in the DMG has the specific caveat of "if it is going to ruin the adventure." If you are able to say you have never been caught in a tough spot as DM where player actions aren't going to ruin an entire night's gaming, then I congratulate you. You should never need to follow this advice. But for those DMs who do find themselves stuck completely, the DMG just tells you not to let your failure ruin everyone's gaming. If it becomes a habit your players are the point where a bad habit will end. If they don't like certain habits you have formed they will take action. From telling you politely to leaving your game. DMs learn through mistakes as well as successes.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Actually, we don't all agree. I think the primary reason for this kind of nerfing is the DM's desire to control how the players attempt to solve a particular set of in-game problems. This can occur outside of a desire to control narrative outcomes.



And for me, the real issue is how _easily_ the players solve the in-game problems. How the players solve the problems is not an issue, although if the BBEG is smart, he will have made preparations to counter the more common approaches. Whether the PCs overcome the problems is also not an issue. I have no real stake in the in-game outcome. 

What seems strange to me is the implication that if the PCs come up with a plan that would short-circuit the adventure I have prepared, coming up with a rules-legal reason why it doesn't work and changing the BBEG's countermeasures on the spot is somehow dishonest.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2008)

Gizmo said:
			
		

> Yes, there were no limitations put on this action by Wyatt. "If the player is going to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, do this." That's pretty much as "often as you see fit." I'm not arguing that Wyatt is suggesting that you lie to your players for no reason.




Wrong.  There are limitations placed on this action by Wyatt.  It's limited by THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.  

/snippage for asshattery.  Sorry about that.

Again, you've stripped out any context to the quote and refuse to allow any of the other lines THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED to be allowed into this discussion.  In the preceding line, Wyatt discusses that the DM should be ready for these rituals, but, sometimes, the DM  might miss something.  If he does miss it, then when it comes up in game, the DM has the power to adjudicate the ritual WITHIN THE RULES OF THE RITUAL, to his satisfaction.

Note, nowhere does Wyatt advocate CHANGING any rules.  Not once.  

Now, is the example not one of the best?  Sure.  Is there better advice that could be had?  Quite probably.  But, claiming that this is some sort of universal law, like Rule 0 that should be applied any time the DM feels like is going WAY beyond what's actually written there.

And you can see it.  Psion, despite NOT reading the DMG takes you at your word and agrees with your interpretation.  Yet, everyone who actually took the time to read the DMG disagrees with you.  What does that tell you?


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Truename said:


> I get the impression that people on the other side of this issue want the DM to come up with the world in advance and then stick with it, acting as a sort of human computer that's simulating the world as the players wend their way it. That's one way to do it, but it's far too much work for me.




Actually, telling the player something false about a ruling you just made, and trying to remember falsehoods, as you go forward, is a lot of work too.  What's not a lot of work is just following the rules.  There's less to think about.  

This isn't about being a computer.  A computer can't interpret what "accurate description of the target" and stuff like that means in the ritual text.  A computer can't consider all the consequences of player actions.  But this isn't about that.

This is about not letting the players actually have an honest say in what's going on.  You told the player "here are the rules about the ritual", and now you're not following them.  

And please don't quote to me the rationalization given for the ruling, and claim that it is the real reason.  Others have tried to do this on the thread at this point in the reasoning.  It is clearly called out as a lie in the quoted section itself.  

This isn't about being a simulationist either.  Read the definition of the "story teller" player given in the 4E DMG and then imagine doing this to that player.  The player was doing something that he thought would advance the story, and now you go ahead and nerf it because you think you know better.  This about control, and dishonesty, and while I find it a common feature of many narrativists gaming style, I don't think it does the style justice.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Wrong. There are limitations placed on this action by Wyatt. It's limited by THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.




The rest of the paragraph reinforces the rationalization given for the ruling. But the reason for the ruling was not what you're claiming it was. It's clearly stated what the reason for the ruling was. The rest of the section does not change this.



Hussar said:


> I see now why Fox News manages to stay on the air.



Me too.



Hussar said:


> Again, you've stripped out any context to the quote and refuse to allow any of the other lines THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELATED to be allowed into this discussion.




They're not directly related. I've already tried to establish that, and I wish you would have challenged those points instead of ignoring them.



Hussar said:


> the DM has the power to adjudicate the ritual WITHIN THE RULES OF THE RITUAL, to his satisfaction.




That's not what he's doing. He's using the rules of the ritual to *manufacture a bogus explanation for the failure of the ritual.* It says right in the quoted section what the real reason (plot protection) is for the ritual failing. The section was never intended as a how to rule fairly on the Observe Creature. It was how to protect your plot IN SPITE of the rules for rituals.



Hussar said:


> Note, nowhere does Wyatt advocate CHANGING any rules. Not once.




Of course not? Where did I say that? Why would someone who doesn't follow rules feel any need to change them?



Hussar said:


> Now, is the example not one of the best? Sure. Is there better advice that could be had? Quite probably.




Everything you write seems to undermine this assertion.



Hussar said:


> But, claiming that this is some sort of universal law, like Rule 0 that should be applied any time the DM feels like is going WAY beyond what's actually written there.




If Rule 0 is so obviously within the rights of the DM in this context, then why didn't he simply explain it to the player that way?



Hussar said:


> And you can see it. Psion, despite NOT reading the DMG takes you at your word and agrees with your interpretation. Yet, everyone who actually took the time to read the DMG disagrees with you. What does that tell you?




Nothing, since it's not true. Look at Raven Crowking's posts. Look at Jack99 - he doesn't even agree with my conclusion but he acknowleges that the DM is lying - he just think it's ok that he does so. I don't know what else to do other than suggest you read the thread.

(Edit:  In fact Imaro made some pretty good statements that I think support my position as well.  In fact, if you bother to go back and look at the early pages you'll find that even someone who took exception to my tone agrees with what I'm saying.  Someone else was willing to concede my point as long as he made it clear that he wasn't conceding that the DMG was a bad book.  In fact, I could so quickly find counter-examples to your assertion here that I can't believe you made this in good faith.)

And on that topic, I've already said what I think of appeals to authority. And "everyone else believes the world is flat but you" says nothing of substance. Many people that disagree with me on this thread don't even cite the specifics of what was actually said in the DMG - see some of the latest posts.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2008)

I tried to bow out once, and failed.  I'll try my save again.  

Gizmo, I reject your version of reality and substitute my own.  You have not brought up any, to my opinion, substansive reasons for rejecting the rest of the paragraph in favor of the line you have quoted.  I disagree with you.  

I do think the example could have been better made.  Yup, I agree with that.  But, my reader filter tells me to take this, in the context in which it is written, to mean, "If you screw up, instead of ejecting your entire night's session and letting the players have an easy win, use the rules to cover your ass and don't do it again."

You seem to read this as a universal application when it's clearly, IMO, not.  The fact that the entire paragraph tells you to prepare for rituals means that this example is a last resort sort of thing that you can, as DM, fall back on when all else fails.  You as DM, have the power to do this.  

It does not say, "Do this each and every time you fell like doing it."  That's what I disagree with you about Gizmo.  I disagree with the idea that this is a universal thing.  In the context of the paragraph, it's pretty clear that this is meant to be a very, very rare thing.  You obviously interpret this differently.  And I think there's nothing more we can really do from this point.  I've stated my case, you've stated yours and we're just talking past each other now.  



			
				Gizmo said:
			
		

> (Edit: In fact Imaro made some pretty good statements that I think support my position as well. In fact, if you bother to go back and look at the early pages you'll find that even someone who took exception to my tone agrees with what I'm saying. Someone else was willing to concede my point as long as he made it clear that he wasn't conceding that the DMG was a bad book. In fact, I could so quickly find counter-examples to your assertion here that I can't believe you made this in good faith.)
> 
> And on that topic, I've already said what I think of appeals to authority. And "everyone else believes the world is flat but you" says nothing of substance. Many people that disagree with me on this thread don't even cite the specifics of what was actually said in the DMG - see some of the latest posts.




Do you see the irony in these two paragraphs?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 28, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Actually I was responding to the statement that the loss of resources would discourage players from trying this again.




Well, I was inventing scrying scenarios from whole clothe to demonstrate ways in which not getting information might actually contribute to the game, as opposed to simply nerfing the ability.



> Back OT - I think lying is a strong term in this case. Lying is twisting reality. As DM, you create the reality of the world. Deciding that a ritual doesn't work can't be lying, because you dictate what is truth in your world.




JW's advice tells us both why the ritual didn't work (throws monkey wrench in DM's plan) and what the DM should tell the players as to the reason why it didn't work (lack of sufficient description of target).  Since A and B are not the same, when the DM tells the players B, he is telling them an untruth.  In common parlance, this is lying.



> The advice is poorly presented.




The advice seems pretty clearly presented.  It is the content, not the presentation, that is bad.



> But all it is really saying is that if your choices are nerfing an ability or having no game to play that night, it is better to play.




Disagree.

The advice says, IF the result "would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" THEN you can say "that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."

The only IF in that statement is that the DM's plans are thrown a monkey wrench. Period. Not that there will be no game.  No matter what else you'd like to insert in there, it is clearly not there in the actual quote. 

I suppose you could say that throwing a monkey wrench into the DM's plan for an adventure completely destroys the chance to play that night.  If so, though, better to allow the PCs to do something unexpected than to nerf them.  And if that means you break out Monopoly tonight until you can retool your scenario, so be it.  But almost anyone would be far better off simply allowing the PCs their choices and their abilities, and see where they lead.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Dec 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I see now why Fox News manages to stay on the air.





I should not need to say this - DON'T BE INSULTING.

Simple, direct, and to the point.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 28, 2008)

FireLance said:


> And for me, the real issue is how _easily_ the players solve the in-game problems.



Good point.



> What seems strange to me is the implication that if the PCs come up with a plan that would short-circuit the adventure I have prepared, coming up with a rules-legal reason why it doesn't work and changing the BBEG's countermeasures on the spot is somehow dishonest.



Right. Being DM means serving up a steady stream of challenges to the players, whose aggregate intelligence most likely exceeds your own. It's a job that requires some judgment; to know when the best course of action is clap the players on the back when they find a clever way to circumvent your planned encounters, saying 'nice job' and 'well done!' and when the best thing to do is to try your damnedest to get them into those encounters, because directly overcoming them is where the fun is in that particular session.


----------



## DandD (Dec 28, 2008)

12 pages of discussion, and nobody will concede to the opinion of the other side. I'd say that by now, the fronts have been clearly established.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2008)

Umbran said:


> I should not need to say this - DON'T BE INSULTING.
> 
> Simple, direct, and to the point.




Appologies and edited.

/me bows out.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 28, 2008)

I concede that all opinions are correct and none are absolute.

If your interpretation works for your game and your group, excellent.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 28, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> No, actually, the ritual won't work if there are counter-magics in place.  Not only the Forbiddance spell, but it is in the spirit of the rules that other rituals/powers/conditions, invented by the DM, splatbooks he uses, etc. exist that can thwart this power.




I didn't hope that needed to be stated. If the rationale was "the NPC in question is using counter-magic", we wouldn't be having this conversation.



gizmo33 said:


> But your example is completely reasonable and is an example of a fair interpretation of the ritual (barring some of the details).  I don't think anyone, including myself, is arguing that the DM has to let the ritual work *in spite* of the rules.  In fact, that's about as obnoxious as the DMG advice in question.




Good, we agree on that. 

Now, the REAL question is, whether telling your wife that the dress she's wearing DOESN'T make her look fat (despite the fact it does) is healthy for a relationship based on trust...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Disagree.
> 
> The advice says, IF the result "would throw a monkey wrench in your plans for the adventure" THEN you can say "that the ritual failed to locate the intended target because the caster's description wasn't specific enough."




I was referring to the opening segment the OP quoted:

"but don't let them short-circuit your whole adventure by using rituals, either."

The definition of short-circuit I am familiar with is the electrical corrolary: "to make inoperable by establishing a short circuit in." IOW, the adventure no longer works if the ritual is allowed to work.

Another definition I found is: "to bypass, impede, hinder, or frustrate." Bypass causes the same problem as making it inoperable. The other three definitions are less of an issue. Is this the definition many are thinking of here?

Monkey Wrench as a noun (as JW used it): "something that interferes with functioning." Again, this is less severe than making the adventure inoperable. He may have meant to use the verb Monkey-Wrench: "to ruin (plans, a schedule, etc.) unavoidably or, sometimes, deliberately."

This is why I think the presentation is weak. His use of colloquial English can cause different people to interpret this section in different ways.

I read the advice as "If the ritual would ruin the adventure, do this." Others seem to be reading it as "If the ritual would interfere with your plans for the adventure, do this."

I can understand that some DMs would wonder what could ever ruin an adventure. Those DMs have the skills, luck and quick-thinking to avoid ruining the adventure. I strive to be one of those DMs. But if faced with stalling the evening's gaming while I try to think my way out of a bad situation or ending the evening prematurely, I would instead choose to have the ritual fail. I've been lucky (I'd say skillful, but I'm modest  ) enough to not have to pull something like this for a very long time. Maybe it came with experience.

And to players that think it's easy and hold their DM to lofty standards: Please try running an ongoing campaign so you can experience the difficulties of DMing first-hand. It's easy to think you're perfect, it's harder to be perfect.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 28, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Right. Being DM means serving up a steady stream of challenges to the players, whose aggregate intelligence most likely exceeds your own. It's a job that requires some judgment; to know when the best course of action is clap the players on the back when they find a clever way to circumvent your planned encounters, saying 'nice job' and 'well done!' and when the best thing to do is to try your damnedest to get them into those encounters, because directly overcoming them is where the fun is in that particular session.



For me, the key consideration is whether there is another encounter or challenge or complication that I either have prepared or can come up with at short notice to occupy the players for the rest of the session.

If yes, the ritual works, the PCs beat up on the BBEG, and I pull Plan B out of the hat.

If not, the ritual doesn't work, and you can bet your last dollar that if I haven't managed to come up with a good reason why by the end of the session, I will be spending the time between the end of the session and the start of the next thinking of the most plausible explanation and working it back into the adventure.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 28, 2008)

What's acceptable "cheating" for the DM relies on what the players want out of the game.

If using ritual will rob them of what they want, then the advice is good.  I imagine this is more of the simulationist mindset - wanting to recreate a specific story.

If using ritual will not rob them of what they want, then the advice is poor.  I imagine this is more of a gamist or narrativist mindset.

Given that 4e is a gamist game, it's bad advice.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 28, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> I agree it is another matter.  And one that logically I would have no reason to think the DM would be honest about anyway.  I would have no logical reason to take seriously an assement from a DM about how often he lies when he believes that he is justified in lying.  The very reasons that he uses to justify lying to his players would be justification for lying to me about his lying as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Do you see the irony in these two paragraphs?




First of all - I pointed out that what you said was incorrect - and you haven't addressed your mistatement.  Instead, you've immediately changed the subject to that of something you find ironic.  I think we will both agree that you will find something to be right about.   But this is not a good-faith way of having a debate.  

Secondly, I don't see much irony in pointing out that (a) what you said was objectively false and (b) *were* it true, it wouldn't matter anyway IMO.  I've been pretty clear all along that my core argument is based on no part on what other posters have said.  I was the one that wrote the OP.  I'm plenty capable of carrying on this debate without appeals to desperate tactics like "well can't you see that no one agrees with you!"  This IMO is a sign that someone isn't trying to reason from principles but is instead trying to "win" something that's not worth winning.  I'm not going to change my opinion on something because some imaginary group of people looks at me funny.  I wouldn't expect anything different from you and I think had you realized that you wouldn't have seen any irony in what I wrote.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 28, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> What a round-about way of insinuating that I am a liar.




Your indignation here is unwarranted and consequently an unfair tactic.  Unless I'm mistaken, you already said that you lied.  In fact, you said it was ok that you lied sometimes.  So by your definition you've already called yourself a liar (which I actually don't think because i don't share your definition).  I was talking about a subject that you started when you brought yourself into it.  So my "insinuation" was largely just repeating what you already told me, coupled with some pretty basic logic.

If I claimed to lie about A from time to time, and I then held myself up as a source of information about how often A occurs, I think it would be reasonable to be skeptical about that.  I see no reason for you to be insulted in this case.



Jack99 said:


> You keep saying that. Could you explain what you mean. Or maybe this was done earlier in the thread? I must have missed it if so.




It's a fair question but a mammoth task if you're upset about me insulting you.  A beginning of the answer would involve reading the section on "saying yes" (page 28) and contrasting that against the advice given in the quoted section.  



Jack99 said:


> I never claimed that no one agreed with you. Just that you have not provided any proof of anything, besides an opinion, which some people in this thread happen to share.




That seems reasonable.  But I think there are grounds for my opinion that make it a little more substantial than "I like the color blue."  Some opinions are more subject to principles and consistency than others.



Jack99 said:


> Point was that you said that a lot of people agreed with you. Fine. I just thought I would at least mention 3 people with a lot of experience as a DM and who disagree with you. You claim that JW's advice is bad, as if it was an universal truth - it's not.




Ok, fair enough.  I think the DM in the example was dishonest.  I think that's an opinion we both share, but still just an opinion.  I think that the DM in the example was making a poor decision.  That's not an opinion we both share, but that's an opinion too.  I think the reasoning for why it was a poor decision and bad DMing is actually given in the DMG itself.  But even if that is true, it's just opinions expressed in the DMG, so it's just an opinion ultimately.  I can't prove to you objectively that not being honest with your players, or even people in general, is a bad thing.



Jack99 said:


> You attempts at insulting me are really bad.




Look you're either honestly insulted in which case I have to apologize for something that I didn't intend.  But I've already dealt with a similar issue earlier in the thread when certain folks attempted to manufacture false indignation at some supposed insult I directed at JW.  Even though they pretty much misunderstood what I said (or intentionally mischaracterized it, only they know).  So please consider the possibility that you're misinterpreting this.  This applies to the above case as well.



Jack99 said:


> Of course I do not care where the advice comes from. Good advice is good no matter from who it comes. Same with bad advice.




I was reacting to your continued mention of Gary Gygax without ever stating what you thought it was that he said that was relevant to the subject.  I note what you're saying here, but my impression before was from what you were saying (or, actually, not saying) and not intended as malicious.



Jack99 said:


> Anyway, I am out as well.




We've probably always been.


----------



## Psion (Dec 28, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> What's acceptable "cheating" for the DM relies on what the players want out of the game.
> 
> If using ritual will rob them of what they want, then the advice is good.




To me, this sounds contrary to the way most players think. The most basic desire of a player who selects a ritual--or any character option or ability, really--is the desire to benefit from that option when it comes up. Just like a player who picks a combat move expects to do cool moves in combat, a player who selects a divination expects to overcome an in game obstacle by applying that ability.

Which is why I maintain the proper thing to do is to design adventures such that the divination is a benefit but not a trump card, earning the players progress towards their goal. Simply contriving to make the ability useless is not fair to the player.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 28, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I read the advice as "If the ritual would ruin the adventure, do this." Others seem to be reading it as "If the ritual would interfere with your plans for the adventure, do this."




Some very fine reasoning, too, so I can certainly see your point of view.

I will point out that, of the two options (ruin the adventure/ruin your plans) that the quote does say "If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench *in your plans *for the adventure" (emphasis mine).



> I can understand that some DMs would wonder what could ever ruin an adventure.




Indeed.

Given a ritual that allows observation for a very short window, and given that the DM utterly controls what is seen during that window, I very much doubt that the ritual could utterly ruin an adventure.

Even if you learned the identity of the murderer in a murder mystery, surely there is an adventure to be had in apprehending the man and proving what you know.  After all, it's not like every court in the land is going to accept "We know by magic" to rule over the life and death of the Lord Mayor's son.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 28, 2008)

Out of curiousity, who would have found this good advice if it was not about divination rituals, say, but about a PC power like CAGI?

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


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I will point out that, of the two options (ruin the adventure/ruin your plans) that the quote does say "If allowing the ritual to succeed would throw a monkey wrench *in your plans *for the adventure" (emphasis mine).




That's why I think the advice is poorly presented. Both "Short-circuit" and "Monkey Wrench" have ambiguous meanings. Instead of being flowery and trying to write in a "Joe 6-pack" voice, he should have written in a professional game designer voice. If he used the term "hinder" or specified that he was speaking about an action the would cause a minor malfunction then it would be clear to me that this was bad advice. If he used the the term "ruined" or specified a situation where gaming would come to a halt because you can't come up with a better solution then I would be 100% certain that the way I am interpreting the advice is correct and therefore IMO good advice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 28, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That's why I think the advice is poorly presented. Both "Short-circuit" and "Monkey Wrench" have ambiguous meanings. Instead of being flowery and trying to write in a "Joe 6-pack" voice, he should have written in a professional game designer voice. If he used the term "hinder" or specified that he was speaking about an action the would cause a minor malfunction then it would be clear to me that this was bad advice. If he used the the term "ruined" or specified a situation where gaming would come to a halt because you can't come up with a better solution then I would be 100% certain that the way I am interpreting the advice is correct and therefore IMO good advice.




I can easily come up with examples of the DM's expectation as to how game events might flow being ruined; I cannot come up with an example of how the game itself might be ruined in this specific case.

Perhaps this is a failing of mine.


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> Out of curiousity, who would have found this good advice if it was not about divination rituals, say, but about a PC power like CAGI?




It might, if I knew what CAGI stood for.


----------



## Lizard (Dec 28, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> It might, if I knew what CAGI stood for.




Come And Get It, a Fighter encounter power which automagically pulls all foes in a Burst 3 towards the fighter, then the fighter attacks them. It doesn't matter how intelligent the foes are, or if they are immobilized (forced movement works on immobilized foes), or if there's no reason for them to merrily trot over to the fighter and get wonked -- they just *do*, no questions asked, no save, no nothin'. It's not a "taunt" or a mind control power, since there's no Attack vs. Will, or a Charisma bonus, or anything -- the fighter just scoops up every foe within 15 feet and moves them into melee range.


----------



## Evil_Dead_Jedi (Dec 28, 2008)

Castles & Crusades would easily fix all of this.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 28, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can easily come up with examples of the DM's expectation as to how game events might flow being ruined; I cannot come up with an example of how the game itself might be ruined in this specific case.
> 
> Perhaps this is a failing of mine.




I'm going to geuss it's a strength, not a failing. Some people are really good at improvising when things go awry. Some are good at winging a good adventure without preparation. But not everyone is and sometimes within the group you play with the person that has been chosen to DM may not excel in either skill (especially as a beginner) and may get stuck in the predicament of ruining a night's game.

It's hard to come up with an example straight out. Usually it stems from a combination of immediate factors that leaves you feeling like you have no way out. When given time to think about it you find it hard to believe anything could ruin your game, but put on the spot in game you might feel differently.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 29, 2008)

I'm a little surprised that "Skipping to the end" on page 98 under the heading of 'Fixing Problems', and "Squelching" on page 101 under 'Poor Structure' have not been raised.

The passage in question on page 27 struck me as being out of place compared to the text before and after, but the 2 passage above are specifically in complete contradiction to it. 

I'm therefore thinking that the passage is guilty of being merely poorly worded, nothing more.

I do disagree strongly with the OPs assertion that there is 1000 things wrong with the 4E dmg. I've read the first 100 odd pages and have already concluded that this is the strongest DM guide to date - and the 3E DMGs 1 & 2 were both pretty solid. 

My personal favourites are the rules for mounts, flying, and the advise regarding the awarding of XP.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 29, 2008)

FreeTheSlaves said:


> I'm a little surprised that "Skipping to the end" on page 98 under the heading of 'Fixing Problems', and "Squelching" on page 101 under 'Poor Structure' have not been raised.
> 
> The passage in question on page 27 struck me as being out of place compared to the text before and after, but the 2 passage above are specifically in complete contradiction to it.
> 
> I'm therefore thinking that the passage is guilty of being merely poorly worded, nothing more.




Which raises another thought; perhaps the paragraph remained from an eariler draft and was not corrected (or, was written by another author at the last moment to fill space) and thus doesn't jive with the "say yes" philosophy of the rest of the book.

Unless there is other examples in the DMG, perhaps it is an abberation? (Not unlike a mind-flayer. Mmmm Brains...)


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 29, 2008)

Evil_Dead_Jedi said:


> Castles & Crusades would easily fix all of this.




Thanks for your insightful input.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 29, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Which raises another thought; perhaps the paragraph remained from an eariler draft and was not corrected (or, was written by another author at the last moment to fill space) and thus doesn't jive with the "say yes" philosophy of the rest of the book.
> 
> Unless there is other examples in the DMG, perhaps it is an abberation? (Not unlike a mind-flayer. Mmmm Brains...)




Yep, that sounds reasonably likely. It's just so clunky compared to all the work around it that it really stood out.

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


----------



## Obryn (Dec 29, 2008)

I can't believe this thread is still going on. 

I seldom fudge, and roll all my dice in the open, but at the same time I think all the rage about DMs lying is overblown.

I do my prep-work in stages, usually.  I seldom plan out a long, drawn-out adventure when I'm rolling my own from scratch.  At best, I'll have a list of important stats that may or may not be needed, general notes about what everyone who's not the PCs are doing, some notes and details of locations that might come into play, and then I adapt from there.  Next session, I take what happened, add anything new I might need, drop things that turned out to be unimportant and/or irrelevant, and prep some more from that point.

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."  There's simply no _there_ there for me to lie about.  I just keep things reasonable and internally consistent without going out of my way to screw the players out of success.


In the case of the _Horrible Passage Of Game-Destroying DOOM and MISERY_, I'd wing it as such:

(1) If the enemy in question has reasonable resources, access to rituals, and is magically competent or has magically-capable allies, I may not know ahead of time that they've cast anti-scrying rituals.  I simply haven't prepared that deeply; it's completely possible I have no game stats on them whatsoever.  If it's logical that they have, then they have.  If not, not.  The Lich-King likely has, even if I don't bother improvising it before the game.  Ditto, Black Angus the Grandfather of Assassins.  Karl the Bold, a wandering evil knight, likely hasn't.

(2) If the PCs' description _really wasn't_ good enough, well, that's the way the ritual works, and that's that.  I would never call a two-paragraph description "not good enough" however.  I guess a completely literal reading of the PASSAGE OF DOOM would imply I should, but frankly I can't see taking it at face value, given the rest of everything.

(3) All else being equal, I love it when my players find clever solutions to problems I throw at them.  It's impossible for them to short-circuit my plans, insofar as I really have no plans.  If a guy I thought might turn out as a recurring villain turns out to be a chump.... well, that's pretty awesome IMHO.


So yeah.  That little bit of the DMG kinda sucks.  It's incongruous with most of the rest of it, and I'm inclined to think it's poorly-worded.  Regardless, I don't think it would ruin a new DM's game, or spoil a group's experience.  I really don't see how this turned into a 13-page thread, frankly.  I guess the undercurrent of unspoken edition war may be propelling it?  Or maybe having a bad paragraph or two renders a whole book useless trash?  I'm puzzled.

-O


----------



## Evil_Dead_Jedi (Dec 29, 2008)

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.


----------



## Psion (Dec 29, 2008)

Evil_Dead_Jedi said:


> 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.




EDJ,
you may not have much history here, but for the record, ENWorld has been the target of both well meaning (but tiresome) system evangelism as well outright orchestrated board raids from the C&C forae. Understand that some locals are not interested in what C&C has to offer and are further jaded by repeated attempts to present is as a panacea for all our gaming ills.

At any rate, I do believe your post is off topic and besides the point. This thread is primarily about a passage in the 4e DMG. This is a discussion of an editorial problem and GMing philosophy, not a gaming problem to be handled by a particular rules set.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 29, 2008)

Evil_Dead_Jedi said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

Obryn said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

FreeTheSlaves said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

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 (Dec 30, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.



Mallus said:


> 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.  



Mallus said:


> 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.  



Mallus said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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."



gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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 (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> 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...


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 30, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


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




Hmm.  This is a reading comprehension issue.  AFAICT Mallus is talking about a general principle.  But obviously if you had understood much of what I wrote in the last couple posts you would know that I agree with you that they HAD established the conditions and thus I was able to talk about contradictions with at least some logical basis.  



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yes *they* have, haven't *they*.




If you're directing the "they" thing at me, once again I think your position is just simply illogical.  Your emotions may be telling you that I'm *wrong* but you've apparently forgotten what it was that I've been trying to say.

Since I'm arguing that the passage in the OP is inconsistent with other areas of the DMG, then I really have no need to "pick and choose" anything.  If sentence A and sentence B are inconsistent, then the meanings of sentences C, D, E, etc. are irrelevant to that issue of consistency.  A and B don't stop being inconsistent just because a poster wants to tell me about how *he* DMs.  Or that A, C, and D are consistent and so B should just be ignored as "bad writing" or whatever.

A logical case could be made that I misunderstood A or B.  For example, though I never really found much of an argument to support this IMO, some posters argued that the fact that A and B contradiced each other was evidence that B, somehow was the "context" for A and therefore magically over-rode it.  I would be as if I said "a tomato is a fruit" and later on said "a tomato is a vegetable" and then claimed that my later statement somehow provided important context for the former so you really should just ignore the former.  I never thought that argument correctly used the definition of "context".  That's what I meant by picking and choosing.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


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





I'll say this, as I'm not sure which side of the spectrum I'm on as far as what should or shouldn't be in the DMG... but where do you draw the line between what is essentially DMG material and what should essentially be Starter Set or Dungeonmastering 4e For Dummies material? I mean right now there's tons of overlap in these books and really I think that may lead to players (old and new) who pick up say... The Starter Set and the core books to feel as if they're not really getting their money's worth. I know the lack of actual material, spacing out of material and general feeling of skimpiness and incompleteness is a major issue many have with 4e... but when you look at the DMG, Starter Set and Dungeon Mastering 4e/ D&D 4e for Dummies there really is just too much that's reprinted and repeated.

EDIT: I really think WotC exacerbates this problem by continually releasing "Starter Sets" after the core rulebooks...then wonmdering why they sell badly when it's little more than a paired down reprint of the cores.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> ...that I agree with you that they HAD established the conditions and thus I was able to talk about contradictions with at least some logical basis.



Yup. That's our disagreement in a nutshell. I think the DMG does establish the necessary conditions --though I prefer the term 'context'-- and you do not. Right?

Also, you should never let logic interfere with reading comprehension.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 30, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I'll say this, as I'm not sure which side of the spectrum I'm on as far as what should or shouldn't be in the DMG... but where do you draw the line between what is essentially DMG material and what should essentially be Starter Set or Dungeonmastering 4e For Dummies material?



Good question. I don't think there should be a Starter Set. In general I prefer not to be sold a piece of advertising. Any material suitable for a 'starter set' should be free on the Internet. And the DMG itself should be Dungeonmastering for Dummies. It should be as comprehensive as possible while still functioning as a tutorial for people completely new to roleplaying.  



> I mean right now there's tons of overlap in these books and really I think that may lead to players (old and new) who pick up say... The Starter Set and the core books to feel as if they're not really getting their money's worth.



I think that's a problem too.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 30, 2008)

Obryn said:


> 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.




The way threads work AFAIK is that if you're responding to a particular statement you can quote it.  You posted a general statement on the thread and started off with "why is this thread still going on?"  "Why is this thread still going on?" is virtually nonsense if it's just directed at one person.

The ideas you expresssed had already been debated by others and your statements didn't really reference any of that, which I thought was unfair and ironic considering your seeming complaints about the length of the thread.  The posts that you supposedly were trying to select out, do, in fact, tie back eventually to the OP so I think it's strange to argue that somehow your statements were obviously attributable to only certain posts since, you would hope, they'd all be OT.

Anyway, in light of the fact that you think I'm being a jerk and that we're talking about a roleplaying game here, for the most part, I don't think you really need me to say anything else.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 30, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Yup. That's our disagreement in a nutshell. I think the DMG does establish the necessary conditions --though I prefer the term 'context'-- and you do not. Right?




No - I don't.   I think you've gotten my position on this backwards.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 30, 2008)

gizmo33 said:


> I think you've gotten my position on this backwards.



How so?


----------



## Rel (Dec 30, 2008)

I'm convinced at this point that the thread has served its purpose and is going nowhere constructive.  Sounds like time to shut her down.


----------

