Is the DM always right?

[Rezzin]

EDIT: New thread title: Do you accept the DM's decision at the table?

I have a real rule nazi as a player and he pompously declares almost every game that as a DM, my word is never final. Rules are rules and if there is an ambiguous situation where the DM has to make a call, the player kinda loses it. He tends to argue every point of the rule based on whatever info he can find - using such concrete excuses such as "well it doesn't say I can't do that?!" He is the only player that brings up these nuances and tries to "twist" the rules to his liking. When he is challenged, or (gasp!) proved wrong he declares that D+D sucks more and more everyday and that the player is always right - just say "yes!"

So in 4e, do you guys still think the DM's rule is final? As long as the DM is not saying something along the lines of "you can't do that becasue I say so" or something to that nature. Frankly I have been playing D&D and other RPG's for damn near twenty years and it is something I have become used to - the DM as an arbiter of sorts. If something odd comes up in the rules, the DM rules it on the fly as to not disrupt the game and then the players can come back to it out of game if there is still some discrepancy later on.

 

[abyssaldeath]

During a session the DM is always right. A player can correct a DM, but if a rule is in question make a note of it and discuss it after the session.

 

[fba827]

Here is my guideline that I tell people when it comes to rules

The order of authority is roughly ...
(from least authority to most authority)
1.Character Builder
2.Books
3.Customer Service/Faq/Clarifications
4.Errata
5.Your DM's decision

First I would recommend at least (honestly) listening - does he have a valid point (he may have a valid point even if just one out of a hundred times in there).

Then, in response to something you don't necessarily agree with or is too complex to look at that moment, respond with something like "Possibly. But for the sake of keeping things moving, we'll play it like this for now and then I'll look at it later on how to do it in case it comes up again ..."

After that, I'd suggest rather than making it about "who is right and who is wrong" in interpreting the rule, you instead state it as "that may be the case, but for this campaign we're doing it like this ..." BUT , be prepared at that point to have responses about why do it one way over the other. It can be vague stuff like "it will work better for stuff planned for this game." or "it works simpler" etc.

If all else fails, you can invoke PHB p8 "DM's role" is also listed as referee when "the rules/situation is unclear then the DM's job is to adjudicate what would happen." And, in this case the situation must not clear if you're having a conversation about it. Warning, using this tactic is a make-or-break tactic. It will either quiet the rules lawyer down (because you used text to support your statement) or it will fire him up (because you used text to support your statement so he must go back and find more text to support his).


If it gets really really bad, consider just telling him (in private ) that it is starting to get a little distracting for everyone when he's questioning everything all the time. So could he be a bit more particular about which topics he chooses to question... etc (again, this could go in either extreme direction depending on the person himself).

If it just gets worse then you'll have to consider asking him to DM the next campaign or to simply not come back to the game.

Disclaimer: just my ramble based on the information presented here. obviously, there are aspects of the social dynamic and personalities that i don't know about. So to it for what it's worth.

 

[Ryujin]

The DM is the final arbiter. It can be no other way. There's a point where the player has to shut up and take it, or he's destroying the session.

The DM is like a director who is making an action/adventure film; the actors can ask to ad-lib, but he gets the final say on how the scene plays out. If something is adjudged wrongly during play then that's OK, it can get fixed in editing. Time is money.

 

[kilpatds]

It's part of the social contract...

It's part of the social contract. How the final decision is made is something your group as a whole should decide on...

My preference is "The DM is always right for now, but should double-check after the fight/session". But people have fun with the "Stop the game to double check the rules 3-ways from Sunday" approach. There is no badwrongfun here, there's just what your group does.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

[...]

Frankly I have been playing D&D and other RPG's for damn near twenty years and it is something I have become used to - the DM as an arbiter of sorts.

[...]

Well the DMG does say, "As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor..." Fact of the matter is that the DMs job is clearly spelled out in the DMG, and being a referee is clearly pointed out as being one such aspect of that job. If the player likes to quote rules then I suggest you have him/her read up on how to be a DM in the DMG.

 

[malraux]

my general rule of thumb is that no more than 30 seconds or so should be spent arbitrating a rule. After that, the DM should make a temporary call. After that session, away from the table, any amount of detailed rules lookup should be done to determine the by the book rule.

My only general exception to this is life-death sorts of situations. Those matter a lot to get something right.

That said, my general opinion on rule adjudication is that you should always decide in favor of the more awesome option. "Can I use mage hand to tip the giant stewpot over onto the bad guys?" IMO, that sounds awesome, and so it works at least once.

 

[Herschel]

The DM is ALWAYS right, even when he's wrong. If you have a legitimate debate, look it up later. "Perfect" rules are not the foundation of a fun game, rules are a tool.

 

[Obryn]

I'm perfectly happy to discuss the reasoning behind my rulings while running a game. Players change my mind pretty often, actually! But if a player gets argumentative, I pretty much cut them off. The rest of us keep moving, and if the player is really upset, we can talk about it after the game. And if they continue to be disruptive, they can feel free to leave my house.

-O

 

[ricardo440]

The short answer to your question is "yes"
I agree with what eveyrone else says. Make decisions quickly and look them up later. Then at the begining of next session say "last week blah happened, on reflection we will do blah in the future"

However your problems seems not to be if the GM is right or not, but that one of your players is being obstinant.

It is hard to advise considering I don't know the person, but depending on their character (the real persons character) you could try a few things. ( Assuming you want to keep him in the game for one reson or another)

1) if you know them and are good mates then just chat with them, say you think the arguments are spoiling the game a bit and arn't as fun for everyone.
2) You could ask one of your other players to do the same thing if they are good mates. Or ask him to try to help in game.
3) Make sure you are being fair. but if you are then definitely stand by your convictions.
4) In the game just say you are moving on. "I don't want to discuss this now as it is interupting the game, we can chat about it after the game; at the moment it happens like this..."

The hardest one is if you are running in a club or something and you don't really like the guy. I think in that case you just need to lay down the law. If he doesn't like it he should join another game, or leave. You have the other players fun to worry about too and indeed (often neglected) your own fun.