Backtracking

[Thandren]

One of my pet hates in D&D is if a DM or a Player for that fact tries to back track what has just taken place. I say if something happens during your game then let it happen.

It is a shame when a DM kills some player then finds some way to make so the player did not actually die after all. For me that takes away the atmosphere of the game.

If a player moves so an attack of oportunaty takes place then I prefer when the DM does not let the player retract the move.

The worse is if the DM backtracks something because a player argues about something.

Basically I like it when DM's stick to their guns.

What do the rest of you think.

 

[andrew_kenrick]

Nothing breaks the believability of a game when the GM backtracks. I've done it before myself when GMing, but always come to regret it, as running with the original course of action is bound to create a far more interesting outcome.

 

[shilsen]

One of my pet hates in D&D is if a DM or a Player for that fact tries to back track what has just taken place. I say if something happens during your game then let it happen.

It is a shame when a DM kills some player then finds some way to make so the player did not actually die after all. For me that takes away the atmosphere of the game.

If the DM's killing players instead of characters, he's got bigger problems than retconning

If a player moves so an attack of oportunaty takes place then I prefer when the DM does not let the player retract the move.

As a DM, I usually let the player know if the PC's action is taking an AoO. After all, the player's PC is probably an experienced combatant who's unlikely to leave openings and is more tactically savvy than the player is.

The worse is if the DM backtracks something because a player argues about something.

As both DM and player, I'm not a fan of arguing with the DM, but what if the DM is making a simple mistake and doesn't realize it?

Basically I like it when DM's stick to their guns.

Even when they're wrong? If I make an error and one of my players points it out, I appreciate it. Sticking to one's guns isn't a virtue in itself. It's only a virtue if you're right.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, DMs should stick to their decisions as long as they are not obviously wrong or unfair.

Sticking to decisions that make no sense is even worse than what you describe, IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

It is a shame when a DM kills some player then finds some way to make so the player did not actually die after all. For me that takes away the atmosphere of the game.

If a player moves so an attack of oportunaty takes place then I prefer when the DM does not let the player retract the move.

The worse is if the DM backtracks something because a player argues about something.

1. I sometimes make it so the player doesn't die after all. The event still happens, but there might be some way in which the "Death" wasn't quite what it seems. (The Fighter that died and thus "allowed" the soul trapped in his Intelligent sword to inhabit his now-souless body). This way he can keep playing for the rest of that session & afterword we decide if he wants to keep playing the character (with some DM mandated changes) or make a new one. There is also if the party decides to get him raised, etc.

I will also backtrack if I screwed up. Say, doing 10d6 damage DC 25 save, then afterward realizing it should have been 15. I'm not going to kill you off because I screw up. Players do enough screwing up all by themselves.

2. AoO. I let them know that the intended Action will Provoke. If they do it anyway, it is on their heads.

3. I don't tolerate arguing. I will listen to a polite inquiry or suggestion. Then depending on how critical it is & how long it would take, I either look it up or do a Temp House Rule, Make a note, and inform the players the next week how the issue will be handled should it come up again.

 

[the Jester]

What do the rest of you think.

No do-overs.

You want do-overs, go play eight-square or four-square instead.

 

[jmucchiello]

There is no point to this topic. Some people will agree with you and some people won't. And most of that agreement involves determining whether or not the DM can be wrong, should admit he's wrong, or fix his mistakes immediately or in some future boon. All of these different choices just polarize the answers to the topic such that there are a dozen sides who are all correct and it comes down style of play moreso than "is backtracking bad?"

I wonder if a "styles of play" FAQ could be created. It would be where to point threads like this one, "how do you give out xp?", "paladins vs DM vs do you use alignment", "We have combats once every six months and that's too often", "AoOs....", etc. I guess the hard part would be finding a writer for the FAQ who wouldn't shortchange some of the styles.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I will alsl backtrack if I screwed up. Say, doing 10d6 damage DC 25 save, then afterward realizing it should have been 15. I'm not going to kill you off because I screw up. Players do enough screwing up all by themselves.

2. AoO. I let them know that the intended Action will Provoke. If they do it anyway, it is on their heads.

3. I don't tolerate arguing. I will listen to a polite inquiry or suggestion. Then depending on how critical it is & how long it would take, I either look it up or do a Temp House Rule, Make a note, and inform the players the next week how the issue will be handled should it come up again.

Well, I don't mind a bit of argument, we're all friends. But otherwise, what he said.

 

[arscott]

Well, if the DM makes a rules mistake, there's a bit of a balancing act between the need to be fair to the players and the need for realism. If I (as a DM) accidentally forget about a monster's limitations and the cleric is forced to cast an extra cure spell, no big deal. But if I accidentally forget about a monsters limitations and a PC dies, then the need for fairness outweighs the need for realism.

If, on the other hand, the manner in which the PC died was fair and above-the-board, but the DM doesn't want characters to die in his games, then he needs to seriously think about the extent to which that harms the game, and should probably consider using alternate rules that make death a less-likely alternative.

 

[fusangite]

Very rarely, backtracking is justified. But very rarely. Cases for backtracking:
1. A bunch of rules errors caused the death
2. A new disruptive player joins and wrecks the campaign in his first game
3. I thought there was a third reason but now I can't think of one.