D&D 5E What to do with DM issues?

[pukunui]

I wouldn't consider it cheating ...

Neither would I. I was just pointing out that *some* people would. Plenty of others might merely consider it metagaming. Whenever someone comes on the forums with the complaint that one of their players has read the MM, they always get numerous responses along the lines of "Change the monsters' stats!"

 

[Sunseeker]

Doesn't mean they need to see the stats.

By that argument, the players don't need to know whats in their class either. I don't run my player's pets. If there's a stat block for them, they get to use that. If there's a custom stat block, I will print it out and let them use that.

I get​ keeping players in the dark, but really most of the time I find that just increases the already heavy burden of DMing.

 

[guachi]

Flameskull appears in LMoP. If that's what you were playing, I believe he appears at the end of the module. If the DM had never changed one monster even the slightest up until then I'd probably say something if I actually knew what the eye beam range was. DMs make mistakes and can't remember everything.

It's also possible he meant to do it. And a quick exchange of "Wait, isn't the range supposed to be 30 feet?" "Yup. But I thought it'd be a better challenge for the party if it were 90 feet." "Roger that" should suffice.

 

[Green1]

Do bring up this to the DM. "Hey, is'nt that ability XXX instead of YYY". AT the table AS it happens.

But, a lot of times DMs have a lot going on and a lot to keep track of. It could be an oversight.

Just remember, though. There is a fine line between pointing out an oversight and halting the game with a rules lawyer session no one likes.

Careful. But, if you constantly deal with incompetence you should either DM yourself, find a new group, or stick with the DM as he develops his skills. Or, trust that the monster had a better ability for it's type. DMs CAN change things for more "fun". It's part of the coolness about DMing to balance out the work load at times and player diplomacy.

 

[cmad1977]

If no one died or suffered grievous loss the 'issue' isn't an issue. MAYBE after the session you mention...'hey, isn't the whatever only a 30' range?' To which the DM will reply 'oops! My bad' or 'yes but...'

 

[GX.Sigma]

Here's how I'd handle it as a player (and how I'd prefer players handle it when I DM):

Say "Really? From 70 feet away?" If the DM says yes, that's the end of it. This particular monster is shooting you from 70 feet away and you have to deal with it. The DM has no obligation to run the monsters as written (unless it's an official D&D Expedition or whatever).

 

[delericho]

Would you wait till afterwards to say something?

If it bothers you (which, presumably, it does - at least enough to post here about it), then I'd have a quiet word with the DM after the game. Preferably one-to-one, and preferably face-to-face. It's entirely possible it was a simple oversight on his behalf, in which case having the quiet word is no bad thing. Equally, it's entirely possible he deliberately made that change, in which case he'll no doubt tell you. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem, provided you address it with tact and maturity.

If, after you've spoken to the DM, it continues to really bug you, such that you're no longer enjoying the game, then you should drop out and let the rest of the group have their fun without you. That's obviously an extreme step, but life's too short to play in a game you're not enjoying, but you also shouldn't prevent others from playing games that they are.

 

[AriochQ]

If it bothers you (which, presumably, it does - at least enough to post here about it), then I'd have a quiet word with the DM after the game. Preferably one-to-one, and preferably face-to-face. It's entirely possible it was a simple oversight on his behalf, in which case having the quiet word is no bad thing. Equally, it's entirely possible he deliberately made that change, in which case he'll no doubt tell you. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem, provided you address it with tact and maturity.

If, after you've spoken to the DM, it continues to really bug you, such that you're no longer enjoying the game, then you should drop out and let the rest of the group have their fun without you. That's obviously an extreme step, but life's too short to play in a game you're not enjoying, but you also shouldn't prevent others from playing games that they are.

Maybe it is just me, but I view this as worse than just bringing it up at the table.

As I posted earlier, unless a player made questioning things at my table a habit, I have no problem with a player 'checking my math'. Bringing it up after the session, one on one, face to face, makes it appear as a larger problem that it actually was. Either I flubbed the rules, in which case I have no problem hearing from a player before the action is completed, or I changed the stats, in which case I have no problem informing the player that this is a special monster.

If the player in question is a rules-lawyer, that is a separate issue which would need to be dealt with as appropriate.

 

[delericho]

Maybe it is just me, but I view this as worse than just bringing it up at the table.

I doubt it's just you, but I'm surprised you think it would be worse than bringing it up immediately.

As I posted earlier, unless a player made questioning things at my table a habit, I have no problem with a player 'checking my math'.

The problem is that you have five players, any of whom is liable to "check your math" any time you make a questionable call. That's liable to get old very quickly.

Bringing it up after the session, one on one, face to face, makes it appear as a larger problem that it actually was.

Ironically, it's intended to give the exact opposite impression. The reason for the one-to-one recommendation is so that the player isn't seen to be calling out the DM in front of the rest of the group - it makes it clear that it's the DM's game to run... the player is just looking for clarification of something.

The reason for doing it face-to-face is that telecommunications suck for conveying any sort of nuance or empathy. If you're talking to someone you can see if they're getting annoyed or upset; if you shoot them a text out of the blue then you've no idea how they'll read it (or, indeed, what's happened to them immediately before they read it).

I know this is the 21st century and all, but sometimes the old ways are still the best ways.

 

[graypariah]

You don't want to be that guy.

That guy will stop a session dead in it's tracks to call the DM on any thing not done according to the letter of the rules and consider himself being perfectly polite about it if he does it with a note or private message. I have banned that guy from playing at my table. No good comes from allowing such a player to ruin the experience for both the DM and the other players. If a player has a dispute with one of my rulings they can contact me in private after the session, but during a session that is a good way not to get invited to my next campaign.