D&D General A Rant: DMing is not hard.

[cbwjm]

I'd argue it every time, for two reasons:

1 - if it's that much of an error it should never have been allowed to stand in the first place (i.e. it should have been got right the first time)
2 - inconsistencies like that, where rulings change week to week, wreck the game if allowed to stand and serve to quickly undermine the credibility of the DM. This is why doing so is seen as poor DMing practice. If you're not going to fix the error when it happens, that's fine; but that error then risks becoming a house rule for the rest of that campaign (though some errors are minor enough one could say 'who cares', some others can make enough of a difference in the moment that they do set a precedent).

Well, I've never had it happen that one of my friends kept arguing for the previous ruling after we've corrected the rules and moved on. If they did, then unfortunately that would mean the table wasn't the right fit for them and they would no longer be invited back to play.

There is no risk of an error becoming a house rule, unless we look up the actual rule afterwards and decide that isn't how we want to play, otherwise once we know the actual rule we keep using it.

And it isn't like I keep the actual rule from the players to surprise them with it next time, I let everyone know what was wrong and the correct rule for next time. I feel that being able to make mistakes and correct them after the session is important, especially when learning a new game. The ruling keeps the game moving and you better cement the rules on your mind when you look up the rules later.

 

[Cadence]

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

If several DMs have an idea for the next campaign to try, how do they decide on that? (Ours kind of informally votes I guess, with probably bonus points to someone who hasn't gotten to run in a while - but if it isn't what anyone else is interested in, they won't get bumped above others).

Is choosing the system different for your group than choosing the campaign?

Does it matter if trying a different game requires expenditure on the part of the other players or not? Is it expected?

 

[Lanefan]

And that law definitely doesn't give players carte blanche to be the most horrible dicks to one another, or to the GM?

Coming from you, I'm genuinely shocked. This phrase is, perhaps more than any other, the one most likely to be abused by players--because it gives them unfettered freedom to do any action, no matter how disruptive to the group, no matter how disruptive to your campaign, no limits.

Pretty much, yes.

That said, it's far less likely to be disruptive to the group if the group more or less know it might be coming (I say "might" as even though shenanigans are allowed that doesn't mean in the least that it's all shenanigans all the time).

As for disruptive to the campaign, there's no such thing. If in character they decide to turn their nose up at the adventure I've got lined up and spend their time pranking etc. each other instead, then that's what happens. It's their choice.

As for "no limits", it becomes self-limiting after a while; in that characters who cause too many headaches for the party are liable to see themselves at the very least run out of said party, if not worse.

Not at all. "That depended on the specifics of the situation at the time...which is what I said, at the time."

Narrowly-tailored rulings are a dime a dozen in common law.

And are then cited later as precedent.