Is the DM always right?

[N0Man]

...the only motivation that you could possibly have for this is to try to use desperate emotional pleas to cheat your way into some benefit...

But as I mentioned before, we don't *know* all the circumstances, and really can't assume he's just trying to get some benefit.

In the example given, the only mechanical benefit I can imagine is trying to skirt around treating it like a ranged attack in order to prevent an Opportunity Attack from using a ranged attack in melee range, however if he isn't doing that then I can't imagine what other benefit there would be.

Unless he was trying to set a precedence with this rule in order to exploit another power in the exact same way.

Without actually being involved, the rest of us don't know if it is an attempt at abuse, or merely just not wanting to bother with mechanics that really are insignificant to the outcome (as in the example given). We also don't know if the DM is being unnecessarily inflexible as well. We can assume and point fingers, but only those at the table really know the whole story.

Sometimes there are problem players, sometimes there are problem DMs, and sometimes both of them just meet in the middle.

I have played with players like you describe Draco, and I know they exist. I've also played with inflexible DMs that just wouldn't cut anyone a break for the sake of fun or roleplay, and would even arbitrarily interpret rules against you, when the rules fully support you.

Example, one of my last DMs forbid me from taking 10 on a Performance check with my bard in order to do a routine street performance that I decided to do just to pass the time. The reason was because the DM fancied himself to be a performer of sorts (a poor one, I will say), and believed that there was no such thing as "routine" when it came to *performance*, and there was always a chance something could go very wrong.

When I had a character concept that just didn't work very well with 3.5 D&D classes. The closest I could come was a bard. I explained my concept and I asked him if I could trade 1 class skill (that was useful, but didn't fit my character concept that I wanted) for another class skill that suited my concept. He flat out refused, and only would allow me to trade out one of the key skills that was necessary for my concept for the other skill (that wasn't even a powerful skill, just fit my character).

With the same character I asked if he would allow me to forfeit evocation and conjuration spells in order to pick up divination spells, and again he refused...

Anyway, back to the point, we don't know the full story, and we really shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the whole story.

 

[DracoSuave]

But as I mentioned before, we don't *know* all the circumstances, and really can't assume he's just trying to get some benefit.

Preponderance of the evidence, on the other hand. Damn I need to read that ability.

In the example given, the only mechanical benefit I can imagine is trying to skirt around treating it like a ranged attack in order to prevent an Opportunity Attack from using a ranged attack in melee range, however if he isn't doing that then I can't imagine what other benefit there would be.

Dominating would daze the opponent which might have defensive benefits for the attacked dude. And it wouldn't avoid the opportunity attack, because OAs trigger off of using ranged powers AND making ranged attacks. Most of the time they overlap, but there are outliers in both directions that do not.

Unless he was trying to set a precedence with this rule in order to exploit another power in the exact same way.

Indeed. Not to mention, there's a benefit to the other players in having that enemy dominated. If I had a rogue in the party, I'd be upset if the bard (who's job it is is to help -me- do better as a leader) decided he didn't want to try to give an enemy a status that directly affects my role's ability to work (i.e. give me that juicy sneak attack)... or even just that +2 to hit from Combat Advantage.

As a DM, my duty isn't to the bard, but all the players.

Without actually being involved, the rest of us don't know if it is an attempt at abuse, or merely just not wanting to bother with mechanics that really are insignificant to the outcome (as in the example given). We also don't know if the DM is being unnecessarily inflexible as well. We can assume and point fingers, but only those at the table really know the whole story.

This much is true. In -this- instance, on second thought, I'd probably say 'Look, Fansy the Fabulous. Stabby mcShanker, Wizzer vanOrbinson and Beefroy Tankkins over here wouldn't mind that +2 to hit and that sneak attack. Just roll the damn dice. Geez.'

Sometimes there are problem players, sometimes there are problem DMs, and sometimes both of them just meet in the middle.

Truth.

I have played with players like you describe Draco, and I know they exist. I've also played with inflexible DMs that just wouldn't cut anyone a break for the sake of fun or roleplay, and would even arbitrarily interpret rules against you, when the rules fully support you.

Both types are bad for party cohesion.

Example, one of my last DMs forbid me from taking 10 on a Performance check with my bard in order to do a routine street performance that I decided to do just to pass the time. The reason was because the DM fancied himself to be a performer of sorts (a poor one, I will say), and believed that there was no such thing as "routine" when it came to *performance*, and there was always a chance something could go very wrong.

Heh. I once had a DM assign a penalty to the dwarf rogue in the party of -8 to climb checks because his legs were short.

That player still complains about it to this day.

When I had a character concept that just didn't work very well with 3.5 D&D classes. The closest I could come was a bard. I explained my concept and I asked him if I could trade 1 class skill (that was useful, but didn't fit my character concept that I wanted) for another class skill that suited my concept. He flat out refused, and only would allow me to trade out one of the key skills that was necessary for my concept for the other skill (that wasn't even a powerful skill, just fit my character).

Heh. I'd have just said 'Take the damn Versatile feat.' When the rules have the solution to the problem, I'm not often in favor of going outside them unless the solution itself sucks.

With the same character I asked if he would allow me to forfeit evocation and conjuration spells in order to pick up divination spells, and again he refused...

On a bard? I'd not really allow that... simply because bards are already legend-kings in the divination department. Unless you're talking about a specialist wizard, in which case I'd say go for it, simply because the rules tell you to do that anyways.

Anyway, back to the point, we don't know the full story, and we really shouldn't jump to conclusions without knowing the whole story.

True enough.

 

[N0Man]

Preponderance of the evidence, on the other hand. Damn I need to read that ability.



Dominating would daze the opponent which might have defensive benefits for the attacked dude. And it wouldn't avoid the opportunity attack, because OAs trigger off of using ranged powers AND making ranged attacks. Most of the time they overlap, but there are outliers in both directions that do not.

I was just referring to trying to use the power, without the roll effect to argue that it wasn't a ranged effect to avoid an OA, but I don't know if they'd actually try that. But I certainly wouldn't let them.

Indeed. Not to mention, there's a benefit to the other players in having that enemy dominated. If I had a rogue in the party, I'd be upset if the bard (who's job it is is to help -me- do better as a leader) decided he didn't want to try to give an enemy a status that directly affects my role's ability to work (i.e. give me that juicy sneak attack)... or even just that +2 to hit from Combat Advantage.

As a DM, my duty isn't to the bard, but all the players.

Eh, if he wants to play ineffectively, that's his choice. I wouldn't force a player to use their quarry or curse damage if they forgot (but I'd try to hint and remind them), or make them flank... It's not that much different.

Both types are bad for party cohesion.

Absolutely

Heh. I once had a DM assign a penalty to the dwarf rogue in the party of -8 to climb checks because his legs were short.

That player still complains about it to this day.

Yeah... too many DM's take simulationist viewpoints and it's based on a simulation in *their* head, and very well may be flawed. They tend to rob players of basic options and such in this pursuit of running a game that is *their* vision, regardless of what players find fun. It's a trap way too many DMs fall into.

Heh. I'd have just said 'Take the damn Versatile feat.' When the rules have the solution to the problem, I'm not often in favor of going outside them unless the solution itself sucks.

Actually, I would have done that if it were suggested. I never saw that feat before, but that's not surprising since it's not an 'official' WotC feat. Looking it up, it's from the Rokugan campaign setting, which I also never heard of. I didn't play 3.5 much at all...

On a bard? I'd not really allow that... simply because bards are already legend-kings in the divination department. Unless you're talking about a specialist wizard, in which case I'd say go for it, simply because the rules tell you to do that anyways.

What I wanted to play was a street-smart social-skilled investigative character. I was light on the combat, but strong in working an urban setting. I was actually wanting abilities and skills that weren't that strong, but fit the concept. I had trouble making any class that I knew about fit (and like I said, my 3.5 scope wasn't that great), and the DM flat out refused the most minor of ideas to help make the character work.

In the end, every tiny compromise he was willing to make ended with me having to give up something twice as useful... until I was left with a pretty gimp character... but who at least came halfway to what I wanted (maybe).

Of course, this was without me knowing (but he knew full well) that in our first session, in my first game of 3.5 Eberron, he was going to railroad our party to exploring Xendrik, and that my social-build urban bard was absolutely useless anyway (and he made sure that what use I could have had was traded away for my concept).

I could also add that in our very first social encounter in the wild, I attempted to bluff our way out of a situation (which I was built quite well for). Again, we were railroaded into being captured by me being clubbed on the head from behind, instantly knocking me out (with no roll, no save, and interrupting my bluff check...)

Since I'm telling the story... My social bard awoke in a prisoner cell with his lips sewed shut. The monk woke in the same dungeon with his Achilles heels sliced. The pretty high charisma moon elf dancing girl in our party woke with her character's eye gouged out and a slash through her face. The warmage had her hands cut off.

DMs can be real douches sometimes... I didn't continue playing with him very long.

Yeah... hopefully the story makes sense. I'm half asleep and I should be in bed

 

[N0Man]

I'd also like to add, I toyed with rolling up a character with the same general concept. Despite having tons of trouble making a character I was satisfied with in 3.5, I found multiple ways to make the concept work in 4.0! It can work with a bard, and I even made a cleric investigator that I thought could be fun.

 

[LoneViper]

Another option is to ask the table how everyone else feels about that. Let go a little bit of the control and put it on the table. You can present the the rule and ask how they feel about it being bent. This way it doesn't have to be a power struggle between you and him, but rather a group decision.

+1 to this, but I would add that you should bring the party in on a global discussion of rules-lawyering. You might think all your players are upset with this guy, but maybe they just think he's a joke. It's probably not worth drawing a line in the sand if everybody else just rolls their eyes at his antics and wants to move on. You may also be making things worse by getting into a knock-down, drag-out fight every time he tries to bend the rules. Maybe it's better to just let him have his way.

Really the only way to know is to ask the neutral third-party observers (the other players) and see what they want to do about it. If you don't have a clear social contract, it's probably worth establishing some ground rules for the future, so that if this guy tries to pull anything again, you can know that you've got the full weight of the group behind you, and you've made clear that his behavior is out of line.

And if you discover that the other players think that you're being too hard on him, you'll have a new view of things and you can adjust accordingly. Regardless of the outcome, more group communication is rarely a bad thing.

 

[Samir]

Without getting into the specifics of the thread, I'll just say one thing: the DM is not always right, but whatever the DM says goes.

That's for the sake of the game. Now, how you handle that phrase is what makes you a good DM or a bad DM.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually, I would have done that if it were suggested. I never saw that feat before, but that's not surprising since it's not an 'official' WotC feat. Looking it up, it's from the Rokugan campaign setting, which I also never heard of. I didn't play 3.5 much at all...

Versatile was in multiple expansion books, one of which -may- have been Oriental Adventures, but it was also in Complete Adventurer, and any number of things. It's kinda like Manyshot, you see it so many times you forget which books its in.

 

[Garthanos]

DMs can be real douches sometimes... I didn't continue playing with him very long.

This thread started out sad and in the wrong place....but ummmm that was a horror story to hell with sad.

 

[N0Man]

This thread started out sad and in the wrong place....but ummmm that was a horror story to hell with sad.

Oh, I know... It was pretty bad, and there was much much more douchery in that same campaign...

The whole reason we were in Xendrik was to collect eggs from a special lizard there. When we arrived, we found that by "lizard", it was a green dragon...

Fast forward to the aforementioned capture, we managed to get out of the cells and try to escape, using some rather clever methods that the DM totally did not account for. Being a bard that specialized in bluffs, disguise, etc, when we ran across a patrol of guards looking for us, I insulted the guards and treated them as incompetent, told them they weren't the direction I came from (which was a dead end where everyone stood behind me around a corner praying my plan would work), and made some threats and insisted they find the escaped prisoners (us).

I made an amazing roll, and with all the circumstance bonuses, spell I cast beforehand, and the rest, it was a HUGE success to bluff. The guard was totally fooled by the disguise... for a few seconds until the guard asked, "where did they go then!?"... It was then that our party discovered that apparently the BBEG was some kind of psionic guy with telepathy and other ridiculous powers and *would* have known where we were. Since he didn't know, then this was *obviously* an illusion. The guard disbelieved, and instantly ordered an open fire, saying I was an impostor. Apparently this counted as a surprise round for those 10 guards...

Somehow we all managed to survive that (by getting away, unarmed... after all, the DM obviously took our gear from us too and didn't let us recover it)...

This underground complex connected to some tunnels, and as we ran away, the DM says something like, "you run into a large chamber. There is a green liquid about a foot deep inside this area that bubbles and hisses as you continue running into it..." The party yells out, simultaneously, "No we don't!"

So, later, we find some cavern passages and wind up at the bottom of a tall underground vertical shaft, there is light breaking at the top. Someone has their familiar with shared vision fly up to peek out the hole to see if it's safe to try to climb up it. It peaks it's head up and suddenly sees a mouth full of teeth, then blackness. That's right, as soon as it peeked out of the hole, the familiar was instantly eaten by a dinosaur.

... so....

I think what I'm saying is, no, the DM isn't always right. ;-)

However, they make the final call as to what goes on at the table, regardless of how terrible it is. The players make the final call if they are willing to sit at the table. That's D&D.

 

[wayne62682]

Let me play Devil's Advocate here and say that no, the DM is not always right. There's an unwritten rule that you don't bog down the game with rules arguments, but agree with the DM's ruling and debate it later after the game. However, if the DM repeatedly spouts out nonsense and misreads/misinterprets basic rules, then a player certainly has the right to say "No, the rules say it works like this" during the middle of the game.

As a player I have the right to expect the basic rules of the game to be followed, that's why we play a game that has rules to begin with. The DM is an arbiter but an arbiter should be expected to know the rules he's supposed to work within.