Classy Way to Ask For An Explanation?

[moritheil]

Thank you for your replies. I don't want to go into specifics because I don't want to publicly accuse someone who might be an ENWorlder of doing something untoward when there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

The breakdown is always provided to me, since I always insist on such even for unspectacular rolls; it's merely the number of rolls that might be off.

 

[fafhrd]

The breakdown is always provided to me, since I always insist on such even for unspectacular rolls

Wow, that sounds really...taxing.

 

[Ambrus]

Asking a player for a breakdown of a suspicious roll is relatively easy. What's more difficult, in my experience, is finding a polite way to ask a DM for a breakdown of a NPC's roll that seems suspicious. Ignoring the fact that GMs usually make their rolls in secret, sometimes the numbers simply don't make any sense: "Wow. That NPC managed to spot my tiny-sized familiar as he was fleeing... 90 squares away... in the dark... Hm. Taking into account my familiar's size, dex and hide bonuses, by my count that'd be a Spot check DC of at least 62. Very impressive..."

Sometimes DMs like to consider themselves infallible and/or above accountability. Voicing suspicion or disbelief simply invites counter-accusations of rules-lawyering or less-than-satisfactory assertions that the NPC succeeded in doing the impossible. On occasion, even when the GM admits that he goofed, he'll insist on continuing on with the mistake for the sake of expediency or because "what's done is done".

I'm just saying, sometimes it's not just cheating players we have to worry about. :\

 

[moritheil]

Wow, that sounds really...taxing.

Not really . . . I mean, it's usually broken down on the sheet, and I just have to glance over.


Ambrus, I know what you mean about railroading.

 

[Shadeydm]

Asking a player for a breakdown of a suspicious roll is relatively easy. What's more difficult, in my experience, is finding a polite way to ask a DM for a breakdown of a NPC's roll that seems suspicious. Ignoring the fact that GMs usually make their rolls in secret, sometimes the numbers simply don't make any sense: "Wow. That NPC managed to spot my tiny-sized familiar as he was fleeing... 90 squares away... in the dark... Hm. Taking into account my familiar's size, dex and hide bonuses, by my count that'd be a Spot check DC of at least 62. Very impressive..."

Sometimes DMs like to consider themselves infallible and/or above accountability. Voicing suspicion or disbelief simply invites counter-accusations of rules-lawyering or less-than-satisfactory assertions that the NPC succeeded in doing the impossible. On occasion, even when the GM admits that he goofed, he'll insist on continuing on with the mistake for the sake of expediency or because "what's done is done".

I'm just saying, sometimes it's not just cheating players we have to worry about. :\

Sorry but you can't know everything the DM knows including how or why your familiar was found nor is the DM in any way obligated to handhold and explain everything that happens just because it seems wrong from your perspective.

 

[the Jester]

Sorry but you can't know everything the DM knows including how or why your familiar was found nor is the DM in any way obligated to handhold and explain everything that happens just because it seems wrong from your perspective.

QFT. The dm is never obligated to explain his results, nor is he obligated to roll in the open. Part of the player-dm relationship is the trust that the dm will play fun and fair (usually with the emphasis on fun).

 

[Wycen]

Good timing. Our last session had some really crazy number inflation going on. I emailed the DM about it afterwords. I didn't want to narc, especially since I'm already looked upon to be the rules lawyer, but based on my limited knowledge of the characters in the game, I guessed 4 people were either cheating or not adding correctly.

How does a composite longbow +1 STR inflict 14 points of damage?

How does a 3rd level wizard roll 4d4 damage on burning hands?

How does a Grease spell have a DC 17 from a 5th level warmage?

How does a spell that states you inflict 1d8 plus up to 3 points of damage inflict 1d8 +3 +3?

I know the problem with the last issue - she'll forget again next session and we'll have to explain all over again. Which sadly you might think that is the case for the other 3 as well, except I've been playing with these people for over 2 years and I'm starting to come to the conclusion they have convenient memories.

 

[Aaron Smith]

QFT. The dm is never obligated to explain his results, nor is he obligated to roll in the open. Part of the player-dm relationship is the trust that the dm will play fun and fair (usually with the emphasis on fun).

And I am not obligated to play in his game. If he has the right to question me, then I as a fellow player also have a right to question him. Why should he be special or above the rules if I am not?

 

[Ambrus]

So a player is supposed to trust that his DM is infallible? Sure there may be a good reason why an NPC is seemingly able to accomplish the impossible, I can accept that, but what if the DM is simply making a good-natured mistake? Is it always out of line to point out relevant modifiers or rules that the DM may have missed, even if it causes the death of a character?

On the other hand, what if the DM is simply choosing to hand-wave away inconvenient rules and die rolls in regards to himself? If you trust a DM to play fairly, then what is that trust based on if not accountability?

 

[ThatGuyThere]

And I am not obligated to play in his game. If he has the right to question me, then I as a fellow player also have a right to question him. Why should he be special or above the rules if I am not?

...wow. This isn't intended to be a flame (no, seriously), but I don't think I'd ever invite you back to my table after you tried to call me on "cheating" exactly one time. And I just mean that to say, "Wow, this hobby has enormous depth and variation to it".

If we (D&D players) are just playing a game - getting together with friends to play a varient of Monopoly in which the Battleship and the Thimble have ACs and Hit Points and earn treasure - then yes, the DM is 100% "accountable" for his rules mechanics. It's a combat simulation at that point, similar to Battletech, in which there isn't really a "Referee", even though it'd be awfully handy to have one. The DM just interprets rules - hopefully neutrally - while trying his best to overcome the PCs, and when he fails, they gain treasure and he tries again with another, somewhat more powerful monster.

I'm more interested in telling a story. Sure, there are cool game elements - random combat, special maneuvers, measuring how "cool" your character has become. But they're trappings to the story of the Temple of Elemental Evil, or the Keep on the Borderlands, or Count Strahd, or whatever other story my players and I are telling. And as DM, I fudge rules, left right and center, to keep that story interesting. Am I cheating? No; we're not playing a "game" in that sense; cheating is meaningless when you're telling a story - you can't "cheat" and have Beowulf beat Grendel, and nor would it be "cheating" to have Grendel beat Beowulf.

I'm of the school (clearly) that says "DMs, by definition, can't cheat".