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

[SableWyvern]

This is kind of... Not a good way to look at it? Obsessive perfectionalism doesn't a fun D&D experience make

Mistakes happen and its fine to say "Yeah that spell you used should have been 2d8 rather than 2d6, sorry, we'll fix it going forward". That's just, normal gameplay and doesn't make some "rulings are now inconsistent with one another!" problem. Going back and retconning to the first fight the spell was used to re-play all of the fights is absolutely overkill and I'd actually just laugh in your face if you suggested it.

I genuinely cannot see a world where anyone cares about the inconsistent rule thing, or if they do, is a player I want to keep around

If something's a bad enough situation I'm talking to you out of character about it and you tell me to deal with it in character, we're not going to be friends for much longer and someone isn't being invited back to next week, be it the player or the DM.

"Its what my character would do" is a one way road to a terrible story on creative writing sub r/rpghorrorstories, not something I should be putting up with.

Which is all a good reason for you not to play at Lanefan's table. But it's pretty obvious if you see enough of their posts that they have a clear idea what they want from the hobby and a group that has bought in. It works for them.

 

[GrimCo]

Which is all a good reason for you not to play at Lanefan's table. But it's pretty obvious if you see enough of their posts that they have a clear idea what they want from the hobby and a group that has bought in. It works for them.

And that's why session 0 is important. Stuff like that is discussed before game, so if you are not ok with some of the table expectations, you can say thank you and walk away. Even though i'm playing for years with same people, if i plan to include PvP option, i tell them in advance, so they can say No.

 

[SableWyvern]

And that's why session 0 is important. Stuff like that is discussed before game, so if you are not ok with some of the table expectations, you can say thank you and walk away. Even though i'm playing for years with same people, if i plan to include PvP option, i tell them in advance, so they can say No.

No argument there. So many issues I see people talk about come down to a failure to set clear expectations and an agreed understanding what the game is about.

 

[Lanefan]

Heh. I probably rose a bit. I'm very very bad at not taking the bait.

Does that mean that in at least one previous life you were a fish?

 

[Lanefan]

No it isn't, mistakes happen, you just correct and move on. I have never played with someone where, when I've told everyone the error and corrected it going forward, they've come back and tried to argue for the original ruling at the table. Everyone tends to accept it and move on using the correct ruling.

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).

 

[Lanefan]

This is kind of... Not a good way to look at it? Obsessive perfectionalism doesn't a fun D&D experience make

Mistakes happen and its fine to say "Yeah that spell you used should have been 2d8 rather than 2d6, sorry, we'll fix it going forward". That's just, normal gameplay and doesn't make some "rulings are now inconsistent with one another!" problem. Going back and retconning to the first fight the spell was used to re-play all of the fights is absolutely overkill and I'd actually just laugh in your face if you suggested it.

Exactly. Retconning is awful. Don't do it.

Instead, that spell now does 2d6 every time it's cast....but see below.

I genuinely cannot see a world where anyone cares about the inconsistent rule thing, or if they do, is a player I want to keep around

As a player, one of the things I have to be able to rely on is that the rules will work (and be applied) consistently from one instance to the next. If a given spell is ruled to do 2d6 one week and 2d8 the next, who's to say it won't do 3d4 the week after?

That said, your example is one where you could in fact get away with it, as any result on 2d6 can also be rolled on 2d8 and all you need to say is that the roll happened to be below average that time. Had it been the reverse, however, and 2d8 was used where it should have been 2d6, a roll of 13 or higher can't be retconned; thus would indicate to me that the spell now does 2d8 forever.

If something's a bad enough situation I'm talking to you out of character about it and you tell me to deal with it in character, we're not going to be friends for much longer and someone isn't being invited back to next week, be it the player or the DM.

"Its what my character would do" is a one way road to a terrible story on creative writing sub r/rpghorrorstories, not something I should be putting up with.

Where for me "It's what my character would do" is the whole of the law. It does, however, require separating self from character; and not taking personal offense at the table from situations where your character in the fiction would have every reason to take offense. Some (but IME surprisingly few) players just can't do this, and they're the ones who don't always last very long here.

 

[Lanefan]

I will often err on the side of the player with my initial ruling, then give it a proper investigation after the game for an actual ruling. My players get to have their clever idea or rules interaction pay off right now, and I get time to think it over after.

Thing is, because you let it pay off once the player now has a very justifiable argument that their clever idea or rules interaction should pay off every time they can pull it off. You've set a precedent, and going back on that is likely to produce resentful players.

 

[Lanefan]

And that's why session 0 is important. Stuff like that is discussed before game, so if you are not ok with some of the table expectations, you can say thank you and walk away. Even though i'm playing for years with same people, if i plan to include PvP option, i tell them in advance, so they can say No.

I tell them that 'most anything goes as part of the session -1 pitch when individually inviting them into the game (session 0 is roll-up night), and I probably wouldn't bother inviting them if I didn't think they were up for it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Peeps, let’s not get too snarky up in here.

 

[GrimCo]

Where for me "It's what my character would do" is the whole of the law. It does, however, require separating self from character; and not taking personal offense at the table from situations where your character in the fiction would have every reason to take offense. Some (but IME surprisingly few) players just can't do this, and they're the ones who don't always last very long here.

Well, "it's what my character would do" can be annoying sometimes. If behavior of character kill fun of the game for the other player, then it's not in character problem. It's player problem. Everyone in the group should have fun, but if one players fun is at the expense of the other ones, that's no bueno.

Thing is, because you let it pay off once the player now has a very justifiable argument that their clever idea or rules interaction should pay off every time they can pull it off. You've set a precedent, and going back on that is likely to produce resentful players.

Or, you explain that it was one time thing and moving forward, that interaction works in different way or that rule is applied in different way. Precedent is very common law mindset.