Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Impossible Ability Test
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6459056" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>As others have said, it depends on the social contract. Personally, I lean more towards "The DM is right, even when he's wrong." But, that assumes the DM isn't on a power trip or a complete jerk (however you want to define "jerk").</p><p></p><p>Let me ask you this: Are you, in general, happy/comfortable with the way your DM handles the game? If so, you've got a good DM for the group. In this case, you've fallen victim to the fact that DMs are also human and prone to acting such. No one bats 1.000. If you come at him adversarially, you've reduced his ability to gracefully back away from that ruling and/or just do it differently next time. If it's really important, then you should discuss it. Either way, keep in mind that two wrongs don't make a right.</p><p></p><p>I've been gaming for just over 30 years, and about 75% of that has been as a GM. Because folks keep coming to me and asking me to run games, even when there are other GMs available, I assume I'm reasonably competent. I still screw up. Sometimes, I have streaks of bad rulings or evenings that just kinda suck. I also generally know when something's not right, even if I'm not quite sure what. </p><p></p><p>I've had players who would pull out various source books and confront me anytime they disagreed with something I said. Because part of the GM's role is to have hidden knowledge and lay plans that provide entertaining challenges for the players, there's an associated authority that must come with the territory. Heck, just to keep things moving, you sometimes need to have a final arbiter, which is why Gygax often used the term "referee". That dynamic is all part of the back and forth over rulings, whether or not any of the parties are consciously aware of it. Being confrontational about a bad ruling, especially in the heat of the moment, puts the GM in a spot where he isn't just defending one call, but his ability to function in the role he's been assigned by the group. Sometimes you make a call you know isn't perfect, but it's the best you can do, at the time, and the secret knowledge you have about the game world tells you that it really isn't worth derailing the game to come up with the "perfect" ruling. </p><p></p><p>That said, this only applies if the GM is generally good and/or is a beginner who is still working on his skills. If the GM is on a power trip, confronting him isn't really going to do anything other than give him an opportunity to flex his muscle, anyway, so it's still not the best approach. But, if he's generally adversarial, you might have a conversation about that, using this as a specific example. The GM has more impact/authority in a game than any other player, but it comes with just as much responsibility. In fact, I'd say it's the responsibility that begets the authority, not the other way around. If a GM is engaging in bullying or other inappropriate social behavior, then the group ultimately needs to decide whether to continue to allow that and/or how to encourage other behavior. I just really want to caution you to know the difference between a GM who is not taking his responsibility seriously and one who is inexperienced, having a bad day, or just plain tired.</p><p></p><p>My current players, much to they're credit, have learned how to question a ruling without being confrontational. They may say, "That doesn't sound quite right," or, "That's not playing out how I envisioned my character. Is there a way I should have built it to do X," or something like that. Sometimes I give the PC the benefit of the doubt, sometimes I don't, but the approach the players take gives me the opportunity to say, "Here's how I'm going to rule it, right now, to keep the game moving. I'll review it, between sessions, and we can talk about it." Sometimes, I change my mind -- I had a thread, here, a couple months ago to get input on sleeping/ambush rules. Sometimes, I decide it stands. I may or may not justify it much. I also don't retcon the original session, but that's one of the reasons I tend to favor the PCs if I'm in doubt. The other answer that I occasionally give during a session is, "You know, your character doesn't think that's right, either. There may be something else going on that could be handled in-game."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 6459056, member: 5100"] As others have said, it depends on the social contract. Personally, I lean more towards "The DM is right, even when he's wrong." But, that assumes the DM isn't on a power trip or a complete jerk (however you want to define "jerk"). Let me ask you this: Are you, in general, happy/comfortable with the way your DM handles the game? If so, you've got a good DM for the group. In this case, you've fallen victim to the fact that DMs are also human and prone to acting such. No one bats 1.000. If you come at him adversarially, you've reduced his ability to gracefully back away from that ruling and/or just do it differently next time. If it's really important, then you should discuss it. Either way, keep in mind that two wrongs don't make a right. I've been gaming for just over 30 years, and about 75% of that has been as a GM. Because folks keep coming to me and asking me to run games, even when there are other GMs available, I assume I'm reasonably competent. I still screw up. Sometimes, I have streaks of bad rulings or evenings that just kinda suck. I also generally know when something's not right, even if I'm not quite sure what. I've had players who would pull out various source books and confront me anytime they disagreed with something I said. Because part of the GM's role is to have hidden knowledge and lay plans that provide entertaining challenges for the players, there's an associated authority that must come with the territory. Heck, just to keep things moving, you sometimes need to have a final arbiter, which is why Gygax often used the term "referee". That dynamic is all part of the back and forth over rulings, whether or not any of the parties are consciously aware of it. Being confrontational about a bad ruling, especially in the heat of the moment, puts the GM in a spot where he isn't just defending one call, but his ability to function in the role he's been assigned by the group. Sometimes you make a call you know isn't perfect, but it's the best you can do, at the time, and the secret knowledge you have about the game world tells you that it really isn't worth derailing the game to come up with the "perfect" ruling. That said, this only applies if the GM is generally good and/or is a beginner who is still working on his skills. If the GM is on a power trip, confronting him isn't really going to do anything other than give him an opportunity to flex his muscle, anyway, so it's still not the best approach. But, if he's generally adversarial, you might have a conversation about that, using this as a specific example. The GM has more impact/authority in a game than any other player, but it comes with just as much responsibility. In fact, I'd say it's the responsibility that begets the authority, not the other way around. If a GM is engaging in bullying or other inappropriate social behavior, then the group ultimately needs to decide whether to continue to allow that and/or how to encourage other behavior. I just really want to caution you to know the difference between a GM who is not taking his responsibility seriously and one who is inexperienced, having a bad day, or just plain tired. My current players, much to they're credit, have learned how to question a ruling without being confrontational. They may say, "That doesn't sound quite right," or, "That's not playing out how I envisioned my character. Is there a way I should have built it to do X," or something like that. Sometimes I give the PC the benefit of the doubt, sometimes I don't, but the approach the players take gives me the opportunity to say, "Here's how I'm going to rule it, right now, to keep the game moving. I'll review it, between sessions, and we can talk about it." Sometimes, I change my mind -- I had a thread, here, a couple months ago to get input on sleeping/ambush rules. Sometimes, I decide it stands. I may or may not justify it much. I also don't retcon the original session, but that's one of the reasons I tend to favor the PCs if I'm in doubt. The other answer that I occasionally give during a session is, "You know, your character doesn't think that's right, either. There may be something else going on that could be handled in-game." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Impossible Ability Test
Top