Players challenging rulings

[ced1106]

If I feel that my players are metagaming -- if one guy knows from memory the Base attack bonus and AC of a standard Fire Giant -- those fire giants are going to start using all the knowledge I have of the players.

That's one of the reasons I'm purchasing EQ RPG. While most players know the stats of from the MM (of course, they do. It's a core book and they bought it), there's less of a chance of this happening with the EQ MM.

What I did was change monster stats:

GM: "You see an oozy slimy thing."

Player: "What color is it?"

GM: "What's your favorite color?"

Player: "Uh... yellow?"

GM: "It's yellow."

Of course, with the 3e Knowledge (monster) skills, PCs now have mechanics that will allow them to have some idea of the monster they're facing. You mean they sunk all their points into other skills? Gee, too bad! (;


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[silvertable81]

I have ADD and as a result didn't read all the replies, so if I overlap some info, forgive me.

 

[silvertable81]

I have ADD and as a result didn't read all the replies, so if I overlap some info, forgive me.

Oh yeah, my post, If an enemy has the feat (as in your sunder example) Why would he NOT use it? That being said, the Monster Manual tells you how these creatures usually fight.

 

[ced1106]

No ideas, just sympathy. PITA rules lawyers was one of the reasons I quit GMing. It doesn't look like you need a gaming break, but when you do, try out Paranoia (1e or 2e). Paranoia is especially useful if you want to get rid of a rules lawyer from the group, yet the unabridged creativity it spawns in even the least creative of gamers results in unadulterated mayhem.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Happy Monkey]

Thanks all

I think that next time we play I'll go over the rule of challenges again and speak clearly my issue with needless ones ticking me off.

I do play that someone that fights at their full bab (who wouldn't?) is seen to be as good as they are, further more, any modifiers (i.e. reasons they are skilled) are visible. Typically the npcs start any tricky manauvers on the 2nd+ rd as a rule of thumb, if at all. Knocking someones hps down is usually the most effective means to win.

I will never 'retcon' for good or ill.

Perhaps it may be best to explain actions and other miscellanous stuff at the end of the session. As long as it isn't important later this would not really be a problem and also there is another beginner dm playing. Actually this could go a long way if I explained the method of determining dcs and npc actions.

The issue is, Dragon Girl, that the player does not agree with my decisions. It is either not how that would happen or why is that happening? Again, noone really challenges the mechanics (except with spells, especially higher level ones).

Takyris, in regard to monster stats, knowing them is no good. If I plan an encounter as I do 1/2 the time, I will have changed them. I also have changed descriptions, very nice. The CDG example is what I too would do. Generally just playing npcs within their personality and intelligence.

I have to again thank everyone in helping me find my solution, I'll let you know how it all goes if you're interested.

 

[tburdett]

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 could not disagree more with this position.

As a DM it is my responsibility to know the rules. If I make a mistake and the end result of that mistake is a characters death, it is MY responsibility to fix that mistake. This is NOT giving whiny players a second chance, it is being a responsible person. Own up to your mistakes, don't hide behind whatever authority you may 'think' you have as the DM.

 

[bret]

Some of this also depends on trust and consistency. The rules can help maintain certain elements of consistency in the game.

As a player or GM, I like the players and NPCs to be playing by the same rules. If there is something that the NPCs can do, it should also be possible for the players. This can also help avoid rules abuse, since any trick the PCs play can also be used against them in the future.

If I see something during a game that seems to violate the rules, it bugs me. I appreciate if the GM will allow me to question it, but realize that it has to be quick so it doesn't unduly disrupt play. When it isn't critical to the final outcome, I'm fine with waiting until after the session is finished if that is what the GM wants. On the other hand, nothing sucks more than dying because the GM changed the rules without notifying anyone or made a mistake and refused to rectify it. A good GM doesn't need to do that sort of stuff. They can tell a good story without having to mysteriously change the rules behind the players backs.

All that said, sometimes the players just aren't aware of all of the circumstances involved. They have to trust that the GM knows what he or she is doing when they make a ruling. If a GM is consistent and fair in the rulings, that is a lot easier.

 

[Celebrim]

Since when does retconning have to do with knowing the rules? If you don't know the rules and have to do things over because of it, I feel for your players.

Generally, retcons are requested because the player believes that he understands the situation better than the DM does or that the DM didn't make something important clear.

The first type occurs when players say, 'but I didn't go straight when I walked into the room', 'but I only took one step into the room', after saying something vague like 'I walk carefully into the room'. If carefully means 'left along the wall' or 'only one step into the room' or 'probing ahead with my 10' pole' then you better say it before hand (in some fashion) and not afterwords, because in my experience if you start letting players define actions after they occur the action will _always_ be the most appropriate for the knowledge they gained from trying the vague action. One of my favorites is 'I begin searching the room'. If you say this to me then I assume the right to place a random character (indeed every searching character) randomly in the room on the grounds that if there is treasure to be found in the room _anywhere_, the PC's expect to find it with a search roll. PC's never complain when I say 'Bob, in the dresser you find a sack of gold coins.' But there is no end of complaining when the random thing to be found is harmful, 'My character would have never gone near the dresser!' or 'My character would never be more than 5' from Bob's character.'

Well, you should have said that at some point before you said 'I search the room.'

The same sort of player is usually the type that gets ticked when I make search and spot check in secret, because they are used to metagaming the result (gee, under 20, I must have failed, better search again until I get a good roll).

Comparatively speaking, those aren't so bad. What gets really bad is the 'You didn't make clear to me that the results of this would be bad for me so I want to start over', or 'I didn't understand that rule, and if I did I would have done it differently', or 'If you told me that the slime on the wall in room 15 was purple to begin with...'. If someone does this, they usually don't want to go back 1 action (which is doable so long as it doesn't have any real consequence), but 5 or 20 which grinds play to a halt. I've seen DM's wheedled to death with this sort of thing.

Third edition makes clarity so much easier because I can define how much information I give out based on dice rolls in a fair and just manner (ok, wilderness lore check (DC 10) failed/succeeded, so, 'Bob, you recognize the slime as...')

I should make a few things clear. I do overturn myself occasionally. I can't imagine a DM that can keep track of everything. I don't consider that retconning. Sometimes I forget a PC has a certain special ability, a spell up, or some other matter. Generally this sort of thing gets caught almost immediately by the player(especially when serious damage is involved) and generally it almost always involves bookkeeping like how many h.p. the PC has left, how many potions the PC has left, how much xp got awarded, etc. I'm perfectly content to come back in 5 sec., or 10 min. or even the next day and say, I've been thinking and I think I ruled X bad, or I forgot Y, and so Bob gets 13 more h.p. or John gets a potion of extra healing back, or whatever. Still everything about the session _happened_ (sans maybe the consumption of a potion). The clock doesn't get rewound. I've never felt the need to say 'Your character is back, 'Poof'. (fortunately) If I really felt bad about a ruling, I'd probably have deus ex machina come save the day rather than retcon or replay anything. Once an action has resulted in OOC or IC knowledge of the universe that the PC didn't have before the action, IT HAPPENED (even if it was according to my notes wrong) and the universe (my notes) reforms to take that into account. The things I'm likely to forget are just as likely to help PC's as hurt them.

Players never ask me to retcon things that make things easier for them.

Most often if I'm forgetting something, a decent player can remind me before any consequences are applied.

As a player myself, I try to abide by the rules I set for my players. I've even been known to remind DM's of circumstances that have caused my PC to take damage. Players that think of the game as the PC's vs. the DM tend to look at me like I'm nuts when I do that.

PS: BTW, as a DM, I don't 'think' I have authority. I have authority. It's my game, it's my table, and it's my notes that 40 hours of my life were poured into. You don't like it, find someone that enjoys having you at his or her table or run your own. And I feel the same way about any other DM that takes me on as a player. _Their_ game. _Their_ rules. _Thier_ world. _Thier_ preferences. They are in charge.

 

[LostSoul]

It sounds like he's challenging your Alpha status in the pack.

Take him outside and bite him in the throat. Then see if he still complains.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hmmm. High level evil spellcaster getting her rear handed to her in a fight when a PC chucks a very valuable and powerful (although not for her) magic item at her golem.

She can stay and die or cut her losses and spite the enemy at the same time.

I would have had her grab the item and then teleport without error to Sigil, erect a Mordenkeinen's Magnificent Mansion, rest up, heal, and find a nice Demon Prince to sell the rod to. That gives her money, deprives her foe of a precious item, keeps her alive, and sets the PC against a demon prince if he wants the rod back . Of course she'd have to watch her back for the rest of her life considering how vengeful fantasy heroes tend to be about that kind of thing. Then again, as a Big Bad Evil Girl she's probably used to watching her back in case her Trusted Lieutenant turns out not to be so trustworthy. What's a few more enemies on her list of people who want to kill her?

She was a spellcaster with a Strength of 8. It would have been useless to her. She saw what it could do, and while given time she might have been able to find uses for it, but she had to live in the now and get RID of the thing that was massacring her minions. It's not my fault the PC THREW his most prized possession at the golem when he was doing fine hacking everything else up in sword/mace/battleaxe modes... He was showing off. He admitted it.




Chris