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.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't view rules as ironclad, if we find a rule we don't like we change it. That may even include house rules modifying a rule like trying out the new rules for knocking someone prone and deciding we prefer the old method.

The time to try out rule changes is in one-off trial-run games.

I guess there's one element that hasn't been mentioned yet: for me, as my campaigns go on for a very long time, any ruling I make is something we all might have to live with for ten years or more. Thus, it's incumbent on me to get it right, or as right as I can, the first time.

The other thing that demands that rulings, once made, be adhered to is consistency of setting. You're not just ruling on how the game is played, you're ruling on how the game world functions.

A character can do anything the player wants. The character is just not going to be part of the party if they ignore the warnings.

If the other characters, in character, decide to punt that character out of the party, that's fine. But IMO is it not, in any way, the DM's arbitrary call to make as to who gets to be in the party and who doesn't.

That would be up to the players, something we discuss in session 0. Same way I wouldn't let another player spout misogynistic crap or other insulting language if it's going to bother someone else at the table.

Again this comes down to differentiating and separating player and character. Just because, for example, I'm playing a horrible misogynist as a character does not in any way mean that's how I feel in real life.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Now DMing ain't easy but it's necessary
So, I'm chasin' litches like Tom chased Jerry

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If I followed that line of thinking, given our stubborn crew, I'd have had no players since forever.

I mean, sure, the DM's word is law; but that doesn't stop players from arguing their case and digging in their heels when they feel they've got a good case. And in this instance, where you're overturning a ruling that you previously made, the players have an excellent case: even if the new ruling goes in their favour, the underlying and much bigger issue is the fact that you're overturning it at all.

Why?

Because now there's a seed of doubt in the player's minds in the metagame as to what to expect going forward. It's the top of a slippery slope you really don't want to be on, the extreme other end of which is the DM whose rulings are utterly capricious and change on a whim meaning the players have no idea what to expect or even how they're supposed to play the game.

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.

To the bolded: I've been assuming use of an already-familiar system all along, here.

When learning a new game (or edition!) there's a shakedown period, to be sure, which IMO is best handled by running a short who-cares campaign in a who-cares setting to iron out the bugs before starting the real campaign in the real setting; with the specific intent that sessions during the short who-cares campaign might frequently be interrupted by rules discussions.

 

[Lanefan]

If several DMs have an idea for the next campaign to try, how do they decide on that?

There's seven nights in the week, right?

Which means as long as you've only got seven DMs or fewer, you're fine. Play 'em all!

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

"Choosing the campaign" - is this assuming AP play with pre-determined campaigns, or ?

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

If I was to try running a different system I'd say it's on me to provide the materials to start with, not a full set for everyone but enough to share around plus whatever I need as GM. Later, if that system catches on and we keep playing it long-term, the players can acquire their own materials as they choose (and-or can afford).

 

[cbwjm]

If I followed that line of thinking, given our stubborn crew, I'd have had no players since forever.

I mean, sure, the DM's word is law; but that doesn't stop players from arguing their case and digging in their heels when they feel they've got a good case. And in this instance, where you're overturning a ruling that you previously made, the players have an excellent case: even if the new ruling goes in their favour, the underlying and much bigger issue is the fact that you're overturning it at all.

Why?

Because now there's a seed of doubt in the player's minds in the metagame as to what to expect going forward. It's the top of a slippery slope you really don't want to be on, the extreme other end of which is the DM whose rulings are utterly capricious and change on a whim meaning the players have no idea what to expect or even how they're supposed to play the game.

To the bolded: I've been assuming use of an already-familiar system all along, here.

When learning a new game (or edition!) there's a shakedown period, to be sure, which IMO is best handled by running a short who-cares campaign in a who-cares setting to iron out the bugs before starting the real campaign in the real setting; with the specific intent that sessions during the short who-cares campaign might frequently be interrupted by rules discussions.

I think we've gone around in circles enough times that this is an agree to disagree situation. As a player I've never had any doubt about the metagame when a ruling is made in the session and then the correct rule is noted afterwards. As a DM I've never had any player try to argue to keep using a ruling after the correct rule was announced.

As for the bolded, that's taking it to an absurd level, there is no slippery slope. I'm not talking about constantly changing rulings I'm talking about making a ruling and moving on if we're unsure about a rule. It doesn't happen often and rules aren't constantly changing according to the whims of the DM.

 

[Cadence]

There's seven nights in the week, right?

Depends on if I want the senior member of our household to kill me or not?

"Choosing the campaign" - is this assuming AP play with pre-determined campaigns, or ?

Our games typically last, say, a year to three years, and end for a variety of reasons (sometimes after much less than a year). And then the question comes up of what to do next. We typically have the prospective DMs with ideas pitch what they'd like to do (game system + setting within game system + what they are thinking of as a general way to go [could be sandbox, could be a particular famous dungeon, could be whatever]).

 

[AlViking]

I think we've gone around in circles enough times that this is an agree to disagree situation. As a player I've never had any doubt about the metagame when a ruling is made in the session and then the correct rule is noted afterwards. As a DM I've never had any player try to argue to keep using a ruling after the correct rule was announced.

As for the bolded, that's taking it to an absurd level, there is no slippery slope. I'm not talking about constantly changing rulings I'm talking about making a ruling and moving on if we're unsure about a rule. It doesn't happen often and rules aren't constantly changing according to the whims of the DM.

Yeah, I've had to correct a rule going forward something like 2-3 times since I started playing 5e. I also occasionally make house rules mid-campaign after discussing it with the group, it's not like our game history is a sacred text that must be adhered to. With 4e it would have been pretty bad to just accept a precedent, there was one guy who just flat out completely changed what a power did and I couldn't correct him because I didn't have the book he got it from (this was a public game so all official books were allowed).