The Best Way to Dispute a DM

[Retreater]

Last night my DM (a fairly inexperienced one - I'm the usual DM for the group) subjected my character to a pretty bad interpretation of the Charm Person spell. His evil NPC wizard cast it during a fight and told my character to run away from the battle. The DM said that for the next hour I was going to run away at top speed, leaving my companions to die in the fight.

I told him that according to the rules that I should at least get a +5 bonus to the roll (since my character wouldn't normally leave his companions during a fight). I also told him that my interpretation would be that the spell automatically wouldn't work because he and his allies were attacking the party. I also told him that it doesn't control me like a dominate person spell would.

At any rate, my character is removed from the climactic battle of the scenario; the group is in a dire situation without my character; and (perhaps worst of all) I have to sit there with nothing to do because of a bad rules interpretation.

What I told him was "I think you're not reading that correctly. We can discuss it after the combat." Do you think I should have raised more of a stink about it and stopped the game until he got this right? (He tried the same manuever on the party's barbarian too after he got my character - luckily the barbarian saved or it would have been really bad.)

Retreater

(This is one of those instances in which my Avatar name seems oddly fitting.)

 

[Filcher]

I think you are taking the right tack, and applaud your patience. Stopping combat to dispute the DM, even when the DM is wrong, is a big no-no in my book.

Assuming 3.5, did he win the contested Charisma check?

 

[kitsune9]

Well, this is one of those situations of where the DM is going to be a final arbiter of the game, but I'd agree with you assuming you're using the Pathfinder ruleset.

However, the spell would work even if you are being attacked by the wizard or his allies, you just get the +5 bonus to the roll. You're free to to interpret the wizard's commands that's most favorable to you so you could run away, but you're not going to run yourself in the ground. Nor will you run through areas that you know that you'll get crunched by yourself.

If the battle was a serious, "the guantlet is thrown down" kind of battle, I'd raise a big stink about it, but if it's just some encounter where the overall chances of getting wiped out is moot, then let it ride and get back to the game.

My own personal rule as DM is that if I'm running a potential TPK encounter or with the BBEG, then I'll allow the players to challenge my rule calls mid-game, but for mook fights, I'll tell them to move on and we'll get back to it after the fight is over.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is the case where the DM has to realistically look at the other spell effects available to players at those levels to get a better idea of what you really can and can't do with these spells.

If the Command spell (another 1st level spell) can force a player to do something for only one round before they snap out of it and regain control... how can the DM really think that Charm Person could be used in the same exact way but for hundreds of times longer in duration?

I would definitely show the DM the Command spell and says that this is what a 1st level spell actually can do... take a PC out of the battle for two rounds max (one round to run away from the battlefield at full speed after being Commanded to flee, and one round to run all the way back once the PC's regained control.) If he still doesn't go along with that explanation, then I just wouldn't bother showing up to the next game, since there's no point.

 

[Filcher]

Of course the upshot is, it is time to learn Charm Person and use it on his bag guys ....

 

[Pbartender]

I told him that according to the rules that I should at least get a +5 bonus to the roll (since my character wouldn't normally leave his companions during a fight). I also told him that my interpretation would be that the spell automatically wouldn't work because he and his allies were attacking the party. I also told him that it doesn't control me like a dominate person spell would.

You didn't quite get it exactly right, either (I'm presuming you're using the 3rd Edition version, here)...

You should have gotten +5 bonus because you were being "threatened or attacked" by the by guy charming you or his allies.

Since the charm supposedly makes you act like a "trusted friend", he probably should have worded the command better. "I have no quarrel with you, so I suggest you withdraw from battle and you can leave unharmed," or something similar.

Regardless, you are not commanded as if you were an "automaton", but you should perceive his "words and actions in the most favorable way."

If he asks you to do something you wouldn't ordinarily do (like abandoning your friends in the middle of a battle), you get to make an opposed Charisma check to resist it.



Okay, now what I've found most useful in these situations, as either player or DM, is to look up the relevant rule or ability or feat or spell or whatever, and read it aloud in its entirety. Nine times out of ten, that solves the problem there and then.

 

[Pbartender]

Of course the upshot is, it is time to learn Charm Person and use it on his bag guys ....

I often use this argument as a DM against players who want to abuse a rule or ability or power or feat or spell. I just remind them that if they can do it, then so can the bad guys... The very thought of the tables turned in such a manner usually causes them to reconsider.

 

[Crothian]

When I have a dispute with my DM I perfer to post the dispute to EN World especially if I know the DM doesn't post here

If it is a critical ruling (one that could cause a TPK to happen or not) I would stop combat and get it right. Otherwise I would just make my objection and then move on and clear it up in between sessions.

 

[Mark Hope]

When I DM, I prefer not to break the action with rules discussions. So in general, I make a call and expect the players to roll with it. If a player disagrees strongly enough, they're free to make a case for their objection. I'll hear that and decide one way or the other. I've accepted arguments raised by players as well as rejected them - I'm as prone to making an error as anyone - but after the player has made their point, we go with my ruling and move on. At the next convenient break, we can address the matter in more detail.

In short, I think you did the right thing. You made it clear that you had a problem with the DM's ruling, but you rolled with it. In such a case I'd have been willing to hear your objection there and then, but I think you were right to both respect the DM's ruling and not break the action for the other players.

Failing that, you should knock the DM's viking hat off his head, grab his books and lock yourself in the bathroom until he agrees to do things your way. He does have a viking hat, doesn't he?

 

[Morrus]

Do you think I should have raised more of a stink about it and stopped the game until he got this right?

No. Stopping everyone's fun to prove a point isn't the way forward. Bring it up outside the game.

It may mean you're mildly inconvenienced for one session, but that's better than everyone being inconvenienced and forced to stop playing. especially if, like me, they don't get a lot of time each week to spend playing games.