Is the DM always right?

[teachamath]

Thank you Wayne. I play LFR and the dm is SUPPOSED to be following the rules at all times to keep the game fair each and every time. I have a sometimes dm who is stringent but also purposely pushes new players to make skill challenge rolls they shouldn't so the party fails skill challenges. He also uses gamemastery maps for everything even if they massively change encounter after encounter. When questioned about conditions adversely affecting us and not his guys during these map changes, he says deal with it, he is immune to negative effects. When I have the choice, I pick a table without him.

 

[Rezzin]

But as I mentioned before, we don't *know* all the circumstances, and really can't assume he's just trying to get some benefit.

The player is trying to get the best out of his powers and you can't fault a guy for that. But ya, he is trying to gain benefits from his power by utilizing his ready an action in an odd way. Example of another scenario:

The Paladin PC (played by player in question) wanted to utilize

Valorous Smite

Encounter

Divine, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Charisma modifier damage. Each enemy within 3 squares of you is subject to your divine sanction until the end of your next turn.

So he readied the action to "use Valorous Smite when all enemies move" so that he could gain the "Hit" benefit of above power against every enemy in range, assuming they were going to surround him. There was no specific enemy or square chosen for the readied action - the player argues that he doesn't need one.

If an enemy (any enemy) happened to end it's move near him than he could use the readied action as an immediate reaction to the movement. But there is no target to his trigger, its just an ambiguous enemy. All he needs to do is pick an enemy and he's good, but he doesn't want to in case that enemy doesn't move next to him. I mean why doesn't he just move into a position, instead of readying an action and just use his power? Or just pick an enemy instead of a trigger with no target? What if another enemy, other than the group of enemies he was talking about moved near him? By his logic he should be able to attack any enemy as long as they move near him - which seems fine but does not seem to jive with the ready an action rules that discuss having a target. Unless he targets a square in front of him, which I suggested...."if any enemy enters this square I attack them" seems to be alright with me. Now I could be totally not following the ready an action rules but I have read them and done a little research and I think you have to have a target...then again I could be wrong, not the first time - definitely not the last.

It is very, very trivial - just like the "effect" scenario we first discussed. Are the ramifications of this detrimental to the game? No, could they be in the future and at higher levels...maybe, maybe not. But later in the game, when powers that have awesome effects come into play, we can't have the player just saying they happen without a roll, nor can he ready an action without a target. (from what I understand). All these issues are minor but when you give the guy an inch...he takes a mile.

Back to basics though and the topic at hand. No the DM is not always right (bad thread title, very bad) but should be the authority during the game - regardless if rules lawyer PC complains about having to abide by the DM's call. Sort it out later. We played this past week again and everything was good at the table, but we again argued when the game was done this time about the same stuff. Ready an action he is still upset with regarding the "target" variable but he has reluctantly agreed to abide by the sequence of following a power.

 

[Rezzin]

As a player I have the right to expect the basic rules of the game to be followed, that's why we play a game that has rules to begin with. The DM is an arbiter but an arbiter should be expected to know the rules he's supposed to work within.

I totally agree with your philosophy, and as such propose a similar one.

As a DM I have the right to expect the basic rules of the game to be followed, that's why we play a game that has rules to begin with. The player is also an arbiter but an arbiter that should be expected to know the rules he's supposed to work within - not ignore wordings and try to bend them to his will.

This thread was off base with the title, I admit it. It should be "At the table, is the DM's rule final? If so than shut up and play!"

 

[Juttasolo]

Quite. I have enough trouble trying to describe this game to the initiated...couldnt imagine explaining it to a high court judge!

"I hit him because I had the ogre flanked and he pushed it out of position...it was self defence!"

Actually, it would be quite funny if the Judge was literate in the ways of D&D, and, was a DM to boot.

 

[N0Man]

Example of another scenario:

The Paladin PC (played by player in question) wanted to utilize

So he readied the action to "use Valorous Smite when all enemies move" so that he could gain the "Hit" benefit of above power against every enemy in range, assuming they were going to surround him. There was no specific enemy or square chosen for the readied action - the player argues that he doesn't need one.

If an enemy (any enemy) happened to end it's move near him than he could use the readied action as an immediate reaction to the movement. But there is no target to his trigger, its just an ambiguous enemy. All he needs to do is pick an enemy and he's good, but he doesn't want to in case that enemy doesn't move next to him. I mean why doesn't he just move into a position, instead of readying an action and just use his power? Or just pick an enemy instead of a trigger with no target? What if another enemy, other than the group of enemies he was talking about moved near him? By his logic he should be able to attack any enemy as long as they move near him - which seems fine but does not seem to jive with the ready an action rules that discuss having a target. Unless he targets a square in front of him, which I suggested...."if any enemy enters this square I attack them" seems to be alright with me. Now I could be totally not following the ready an action rules but I have read them and done a little research and I think you have to have a target...then again I could be wrong, not the first time - definitely not the last.

I'm actually with you in this scenario. When I was suggesting that maybe you might need to be more flexible, it was really in regards to the first example which there did not seem to be any apparent benefit for his request. However, in this case he clearly just doesn't want to follow the rules.

By the rules, it specifically does say you choose a specific action, and an intended target, and a specific trigger. He can't simply say, "I want to attack a monster at my convenience with this attack once I'm happy with the way they become positioned." That's not specific at all.

Personally, I might allow a *little* bit of freedom as far as the target, but if I do, I'm going to require a more specific trigger. For example, I'd probably allow, "the first monster that moves adjacent to me", or maybe even "once 3 of them move within 3 squares of me" or even "the first one to cross this line".

However, I wouldn't just allow them to hold an action until they saw an opportunity that looked good. That's not the intent of the rules, and that seems to be clearly abusing the intent of the rule.

Be firm with him. If he asks for something clearly against the rules and you don't feel there is a good reason to bend the rule, stop him. Be direct, "I'm sorry but that's not a legal move." If he objects, and you are sure you are right on the rules, maybe say, "the rule is quite clear on this one, I think the rule is reasonable, and it's not one that I'm interested in house-ruling at this time." If he objects further, respond with something like, "I think this is the right call. In the interest in keeping the game moving, let's discuss this further another time. Please, let's continue."

However, I do want to point out, in case it's not obvious, if you do convince him to be more specific with his targets, don't use your DM knowledge to thwart his readied action. If his readied action is in response to a reasonable prediction of what the enemy will do, don't deny him that. Let him benefit from them enough that he doesn't feel like he's being cheated.

 

[Carpe DM]

Several people have hinted at what I think is a good distinction. This is not about right and wrong at all.

The DM has (and must have) the power to interpret and alter the rules. But the rules give the DM his legitimacy. Altering them much or often undermines that legitimacy.

No-one comes to the table to play out a DM's pet fantasy novel. Rules are the players' access to control over the game world. A DM that alters them at a whim will have an empty table.

So the DM is not always right, any more than a judge is always right. DMs, like judges, have the power to make and enforce wrong decisions. But doing so undermines their legitimacy.

Note that of course DMs can both exercise their power and maintain legitimacy by announcing rules changes ahead of time and sticking to them. Houseruling up front is fine from that perspective -- it lets players judge ahead of time whether the game is something they want to be involved in.

 

[Sgt_Shock]

I'd like to address the topic's title first.

I think the DM's rule is final under two conditions:

1. He has read and understood all the by-the-book rules that should apply to the situation and put serious thought into using/not using them.

2. His players trust him.

If number one is violated, often the result is a half-baked house rule. One example I like to use would be the Critical Failure houserule a DM we had used in 3.5 edition. On a 1, any number of bad things could happen to you. He liked it because it was funny when heroes failed mundane tasks. And I have to admit, it was. However, he never researched or thought about it enough to realize that it was a rule that had incredible biases. Kaiso, the Monk rolled 5 attacks a round. That's a 25% chance a round that something awful and embarassing would happen to him. Meanwhile, the sorcerer, who never rolled in combat, was effectively immune to the houserule. That DM rule was unfair, and therefore, unfun.

Some players are frightened when a DM makes a ruling that isn't in the book, because they don't want to be the victim to unfair treatment. You've got to reassure them that you've looked into the problem and analyzed it from both points of view.

Now, from what it looks like, this guy can't call you out on either of those problems. He probably only uses the rules in situations advantageous to himself. If you catch him defending your monsters' "rights", then he is truly a man with good intentions. However, if looking back you only can recall him defending his own character, there is a serious issue. From your examples, the latter seems to be the truth, but without actually being there/hearing his side of the story, I will remain skeptical.