Players challenging rulings

[tburdett]

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.

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.

I'm not perfect like you. I make mistakes occasionally and am man enough to admit those mistakes and fix them.

My own sense of honor and decency are much more important to me than any game. If I had to completely erase a days, or even a months, worth of play to restore a player to life because of a mistake that I made, I would do it without regret. I respect the people that I game with and they respect me for that.

You talk about your 40 hours of effort. I think about the years of effort that my players have put into their characters.

The only authority you have is the authority that the players give you. You 'rule' only with their blessing. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

 

[Zappo]

Hmm... I try to avoid rulings as much as possible, sticking to the rules. If I can't avoid it, I'll make a ruling, and my players won't challenge it unless it's completely and self-evidently stupid (in which case I get that pointed out and change it before it can do any damage).

In those rare, very rare, cases when a faulty ruling I made has caused something major to happen, I'll admit the mistake and offer to retcon. While I have the ultimate authority, I don't want to use it to push glaring mistakes. It only happened once or twice, and the players never took the retcon.

As for challenges like, "The giant power attacks?" or "No way he uses sunder!", my players would never say that. NPCs do what I say, within the rules. I try not to metagame, but that's it. They are not going to tell me what the NPCs should do.

 

[Tewligan]

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.

LostSoul, you have made me laugh out loud in my workplace. I salute you, sir.

 

[Bryan Vining]

A suggestion

I think part of the problem here is that there does not appear to be an agreement between all of the members of the group with regard to how to handle controversial rulings.

I suggest that the next time you all sit down at the table, you announce to the players that you wish to discuss rules challenges and that you are not comfortable with running again until you all agree on how you're going to handle rules challenges. If I'm reading you correctly, this is true. I also suggest that you have a a proposed agreement at the ready. That will give you a starting point. This is important: Make sure the players understand that they are expected to live by the agreement 100%. Decide what you will do if they do not live by the agreement and then, if they do not live up to it, do whatever you've planned on. You might, for example, refuse to DM for 6 months. Pick something that would make you feel good.

Give that a try. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Psion]

I'm pretty much in the "all mistakes are final" camp. If the results of the mistake have been acted upon (usually meaning, if anyone else has taken an action since a mistake), then I usually let it stand. It was a fluke; get over it. It's more important to keep the game moving than to reverse time.

But there is karma. If I make a mistake, I usually make it up to the player(s).
That said, what bugs me about rulings are when players don't trust me. A group I used to run were CONVINCED that not allowing them to get a sneak attack bonus via flanking with a missile weapon was a "personal interperetation" of mine.

 

[Henry]

Only one thing I disagree with regarding "retconning" - there are situations that will cause a DM to make changes to certain rules, and these rules changes will cause players grief that they clearly would have avoided in the first place.

Case in point: how would you handle the following hypothetical situation?

After one game in which a player with a ring of invisibility takes out an entire orc encampment, the DM has decided that invisibility is far too powerful in his low-magic campaign. He decides that the power needs to be changed so that it takes a full round to switch between visibility and invisibility.

The party wizard's player balks at this, because the wizard has just spent both time and money and XP to create two potions of invisibility. If they work as the new mechanic, he feels that they are useless to him. He would rather have said he didn't do this, and instead take the time and materials to scribe a scroll or two.

Would you allow this change?

Would you tell the wizard player to "suck it up?"

Would you have changed the rule in the first place?

 

[Undead Pete]

I guess I'm lucky in this aspect in that my PC's are all EXTREMEly inexperienced, so I never get any challenges.

On the other hand, they're so inexperienced that there's a minimum of roleplaying. They follow the carrot whenever a battle presents itself, but seem oblivious to any opportunities for intrigue.

But that's another discussion entirely.......

 

[Tiefling]

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.

Note to others: Celebrim is of the opinion that if you haven't memorized, verbatim, every rule, weapon statistic and spell description in the game, you're a worthless DM.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Are we on the same channel here? This was not a weapon in the hands of a fighter that was doing immense damage every round. It was a thrown spear. It was no longer in the players hand and thus was no longer a threat at all. Now if the player has already demonstrated to that particular foe (or the fact was well know) that the spear returns to his hand automatically then I can understand ordering your golem to destroy it.

If the weapon does not return or the foe in question has no reason to know it does then ordering its destruction is just what I said.

Spiteful and dumb.

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.

 

[Tiefling]

Are we on the same channel here? This was not a weapon in the hands of a fighter that was doing immense damage every round. It was a thrown spear. It was no longer in the players hand and thus was no longer a threat at all. Now if the player has already demonstrated to that particular foe (or the fact was well know) that the spear returns to his hand automatically then I can understand ordering your golem to destroy it.

If the weapon does not return or the foe in question has no reason to know it does then ordering its destruction is just what I said.

Spiteful and dumb.

It was not a thrown spear, it was a thrown Rod of Might, with which the PC had been "kicking the other monsters ASSES!" It so hard to imagine that the PC might be able to recover it after having thrown it?