Players challenging rulings

[JacktheRabbit]

That is just dumb and spiteful. If the golem has the weapon then there is no reason the bad guy would not have the golem hand the rod to him instead of destroying it.

Unless the bad guy was a meta-foe. One who knew he was going to die and thus was going to for maximum screw the party effect before he went down.

Granted, it's only happened once, but I warned them that it could happen more often. The one turned his Rod of Lordly Might into a spear and chucked it. The bad guy had her golem start beating on it. The look I got from the player... LOL


Chris

 

[Celebrim]

I don't put up with it.

If a player continually challenges me on rulings I tend to take them aside after the session and say, "I think you are being disruptive. Continually challenging my rulings is slowing down the pace of play, preventing me from telling a story, preventing the other players from sharing in that story creation, and forcing the session OOC. Please stop. IF you have a legitimate complaint, talk to me after the session. I'll probably be more sympathetic."

If I've made a mistake, cheated a player, or decided that I ruled incorrectly, I'll probably admit it at the start of the next session, BUT I never retcon except to clarify (I said that the wall was black but I meant it was white, then it was either always white or always black. IF you interact with it, it becomes that color and I rewrite the scenario to account for my mistake.)

This brings me back to the point that you as a DM have the burden of knowing the rules as well as your players or preferably better.

I have several general rules. I as a DM am always free to assume certain things about your characters behavior UNLESS you've said otherwise. If the door gets opened, I'm free to assume that everyone nearby looks through it UNLESS you say before you open the door "I'm not looking." OR "From no on, I never look through doors, unless I specifically say otherwise." This tends to stop alot of arguements, though some players simply can't play with me because they prefer that they are given the chance to arrange situations to thier advantage after the fact.

I try to make the basis of all my rulings 'common real world experience' whether there are rules or no rules. If there are rules, assume that they hold so long as it is not ridiculous for them to hold. (Don't expect that if your arm is amputated by an axe that you will only take 3d8 h.p. damage and the wound won't bleed because 'that is what an axe critical does'. Don't expect to climb a cliff in plate mail and not be tired, etc.) If there are no rules, I try to base the ruling on what you would expect to happen in the real world. I've done alot of things in my time, usually more than most players, so I generally feel that I have a good handle on this.

I NEVER retcon (I don't know if that is the general term for 'doing something over' but it is the one I've used for as long as I can remember.) That is a point that bears repeating. Once you start reversing time and letting players have a second chance of doing something, players start acting like whiny students who have learned that if they weedle the teacher long enough they can get a few more points on their grade.

Generally, the more respect that exists at the table, the less this is a problem. Players respect the DM, then they don't challenge him or her. DM respects the players, then he or she tends to listen when they do object.

 

[ForceUser]

I made my post assuming that a DM does his level best to run the game fairly, FWIW. Personally, I like making the monsters "mess up" just as much as making them tactically smart. More, actually, because when they make less than brilliant tactical moves the players get an opportunity to look cool

For instance, my angry unintelligent monsters usually just charge the players' front line. One of the front line characters wields a polearm and has the Combat Reflexes feat. It can get ugly for the bad guys

 

[0-hr]

It sounds to me like the player just wants to be in control. If you give in on this sort of issue, then you are opening yourself up to a never-ending stream of such challenges.

Why would he sunder?
Because he said I would!

Don't let the players control your world or it will not be your world for long. If you stand firm in your decisions, then the challenges will soon desist (one way or the other).

 

[jmucchiello]

I NEVER retcon (I don't know if that is the general term for 'doing something over' but it is the one I've used for as long as I can remember.) That is a point that bears repeating. Once you start reversing time and letting players have a second chance of doing something, players start acting like whiny students who have learned that if they weedle the teacher long enough they can get a few more points on their grade.

I have retcon'd many times in my games and it was always because I screwed up. It was always my idea to do it over and it did not always make things better for the players. What is so wrong with retconning (a comic book term, btw)? It's just a game. When I was 5 I was allowed to make a do-over. Why not allow do-overs as an adult? IOW, to what are you ensuring integrity? Most people hate retconning in comic books because it makes the old story invalid. But if the old story was just played out by you and your buddies a few moments ago, who has emotional attachment to those moments you are going to rewind? Nobody paid for those moments and most people at the table would prefer that they didn't happen. Seems reasonable to undo them to me.

 

[Fenes 2]

I play my NPCs. If anyone else wants to play my NPCs they can DM their own NPCs.

 

[Westwind]

I sometimes DM and sometimes play, so I come in on both sides of this arguement, since I know I have, at times, questioned DM calls. For better or worse, I am the guy with the best knowledge of rules in the group. Don't get me wrong, if I get hit for 80% of my hps in a single blow, I can live (well, sometimes I can't) with it. DM calls I question are ones that seem to run totally contrary to the rules without an established house rule to justify the change. For example:

My cleric walks into a room with some undead in it and a big baddie on the far side. He turns undead and plans to walk across to face the "boss." My DM said the turning doesn't work--no dice, no turn check.

In his defense, the reason he did this is because we're in the middle of an undead-heavy portion of the campaign and he didn't want my character to dominate play (But, I feel in moments like this it gives the cleric a chance to shine, just like Barbarians shine in dealing damage, Bards shine in social settings, etc.). But, imho, there are tons of ways to better accomplish the goal. 1. Give 'em turn resistance +4 or something. My cleric is only 3rd level, so it's not like he can overpower that with any degree of reliability. 2. Give us some living henchmen to fight. 3. Set the fight in an unhallowed temple. 4. Make them bigger undead--God knows we need the xp. I picked cleric as my class in part because of the turn undead ability. I can't stand it when player abilities are taken away spur of the moment for no mechanical reason (and with alternatives that would still allow for storyline advancement).

On another, less important moment, he had an Ettin using a longspear "choked" so he could hit us in adjacent squares. (Which was quite a surprise once we determined our strategy). If the same option was open to enlarged players or something (as house rule or homebrew feat), it would be cool, but it's not. Weapons and spells should work exactly the same for players as they do for NPCs, otherwise the DM runs the risk of creating "uber" weapons/spells and ends up making the game DM vs. Player, which isn't fun for anyone.


Some of the earlier examples cited, I would side with the DM.
Why is he trying to sunder our weapons?
Because he took the feat.

Why did the golem lose its balance?
A combination of strength of current and silt on the bottom of the riverbed.

Why did the charging giant power attack?
When do giants not power attack?


All-in-all, it comes down to presentation. If you can talk with your DM (or players) about why you think a ruling was wrong or unfair in a civil way, your group will be much happier for it. Sometimes that's in-session and sometimes that's after the game, ymmv.

 

[Dragongirl]

Is it just trying to weedle out information from your or is it they object to your interpretation of the rules? If the latter you could always buy the Slayers Guide to Rules Lawyers by Mongoose Publishing, lay it on the table so they can read the title and drum your fingers on it whenever they question you,

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

That is just dumb and spiteful. If the golem has the weapon then there is no reason the bad guy would not have the golem hand the rod to him instead of destroying it.

Unless the bad guy was a meta-foe. One who knew he was going to die and thus was going to for maximum screw the party effect before he went down.

Hardly.

As a player, I've sundered weapons and magic items that would have been of immense value to the party, simply because they were sucking out my hitpoints 2 score at a time.

Sure, you can take your chances in the hopes that you can claim a vorpal weapon from an NPC's corpse, but all that work becomes academic if he chops your character's head off with it.

Patrick Y.

 

[Tsyr]

Hardly.

As a player, I've sundered weapons and magic items that would have been of immense value to the party, simply because they were sucking out my hitpoints 2 score at a time.

Sure, you can take your chances in the hopes that you can claim a vorpal weapon from an NPC's corpse, but all that work becomes academic if he chops your character's head off with it.

Patrick Y.

Agreed, BUT, too often (and in a few examples in this threat, I've sorta got this feeling) that the DM NPCs are acting on knowledge they shouldn't have, or doing things just to spite the players. A good clue to spot an example of "acting on metagame knowledge" is anytime the situation boils down to things like "Well, he had a higher BAB, and so by doing this thing that is normaly a major drawback, he didn't have any effective drawback because of the players low AC..."