Players challenging rulings

[JacktheRabbit]

What is your point beyond proving that you can type profanity in all caps.

The weapon no matter what it was no longer resided in the hands of the player. It was in the hands of his foes. Being a Rod of Lordly Might makes it a very powerful magic item and if he was dumb enough to switch its form in front of the enemy then they know how powerful it is. A smart foe would have stolen the weapon and handed it to a powerful fighter loyal to him to attack the player with later. Just destroying the weapon is just meta-gaming the fact that the foe and golem are going to die so might as well destroy as many PC weapons as possible.

Now if you cannot bother to reply without profanity or anything else immature then don't bother replying at all.

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?

 

[Tzarevitch]

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.

Spiteful, yes. Dumb, no. There is nothing wrong with a foe taking an action just because it will enrage a PC. PCs do it all the time. Why shouldn't an evil NPC do the same? The NPC is EVIL after all.

Tzarevitch

 

[Psion]

How is reversing time a few moments and restarting not keeping the game moving? Why do you need to keep the game moving?

Three main reasons:

Pacing - grinding the game to a halt to enter "rules debate" phase is the most jarring thing you could possibly do to the flow of a game.

Continuity - once people have acted on the outcome of a given circumstance, yoinking a particular point can invalidate a slew of other assumptions, creating a huge, illogical mess.

Immersion - Closely related to the first two, once you enter rules debate mode and rewrite history, you draw attention to the artificiality of the game, totally destroying immersion and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

If a mistake has reduced my 13th level character to cinders (whom I've invested months of gaming time into) and I'm picking up d6s to make a new one, you can be damn sure I'd prefer that the game not keep moving and we back up a few moments so the mistake can be reversed. It was a fluke shouldn't happen to the characters: they are the heroes.

That's where the karma thing I was talking about before comes in; read the whole post before replying. If a rules mistake cause the death or significant loss to a character, I can manipulate things behind the scenes to prevent that loss WITHOUT rewriting the events of the game and the associated damage to flow of the game. E.G. allow the players to call in a favor with someone with the ability to restore the character, the last dose of poison was paralysis inducing but not deadly, etc.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I disagree, the magic item in question is quite valueable and useful just about anyone. There is little reason to destroy something that powerful just to spite someone.

You want to spite a PC then go kill their mother. But save the powerful stolen magic items to use against them. It increases the odds you will stay in the live foe category instead of moving to the dead foe category.

Spiteful, yes. Dumb, no. There is nothing wrong with a foe taking an action just because it will enrage a PC. PCs do it all the time. Why shouldn't an evil NPC do the same? The NPC is EVIL after all.

Tzarevitch

 

[jmucchiello]

Pacing - grinding the game to a halt to enter "rules debate" phase is the most jarring thing you could possibly do to the flow of a game.

Once the game is in rules debate mode going back in time is no more jarring than picking up from where you left off.

Continuity - once people have acted on the outcome of a given circumstance, yoinking a particular point can invalidate a slew of other assumptions, creating a huge, illogical mess.

It's a game. Those actions are also retconned. Continuity is great if you are watch Babylon 5. Me, I'm in the dining room with my 5 friends. We would rather rewind then have someone sit at the table feeling hosed.

Immersion - Closely related to the first two, once you enter rules debate mode and rewrite history, you draw attention to the artificiality of the game, totally destroying immersion and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Method acting is for people who cannot act. I'm not an immersive role-player. The occasional OOC quip doesn't send me into a rage.

That's where the karma thing I was talking about before comes in; read the whole post before replying. I did. Thanks for assuming I didn't. If a rules mistake cause the death or significant loss to a character, I can manipulate things behind the scenes to prevent that loss WITHOUT rewriting the events of the game and the associated damage to flow of the game. E.G. allow the players to call in a favor with someone with the ability to restore the character, the last dose of poison was paralysis inducing but not deadly, etc.

How is manipulating things behind the scenes not retconning? I didn't respond to the Karma thing because I consider it hookier than just fixing the mistake when it happened. You are rewriting the events that happened. He died. No, wait a minute, he didn't. For some reason you feel this retconning has to take place in the game because time immutably travels forward. Me, I like time to be fluid.

We have different views of retconning, I think. I play in games with ready access to ressurrection so this example doesn't work for me.

If you are in the middle of a combat and the fighter tells you he rolled 14, 12, 9, and 15 points of damage over the course of 4 rounds of combat and the cleric at that point says. "John (the fighter), did you include the +1 damage from the prayer that I cast in the first round?" If John responds no, do you add the 3-4 extra points of damage to the creature the fighter is facing? If not, why not? Now, if the creature would have dropped after the 9 (now 10) points of damage, I may even let him apply the 4th round damage to another opponent (if it exists and if it is within reach) but that depends on the specific circumstances.

 

[Celebrim]

"If you are in the middle of a combat and the fighter tells you he rolled 14, 12, 9, and 15 points of damage over the course of 4 rounds of combat and the cleric at that point says. "John (the fighter), did you include the +1 damage from the prayer that I cast in the first round?" If John responds no, do you add the 3-4 extra points of damage to the creature the fighter is facing? If not, why not?"

This is a prime example of why I don't retcon. Depending on my trust in John, I might add 4 damage to the creature if that means that it still hasn't dropped, but in my experience neither I nor John can reconstruct what he originally rolled to verify whether he had indeed been failing to take into account the clerics prayer spell. As a DM, THIS IS NOT MY MISTAKE. This is John's (though I would try to catch it since I try to be familiar with each players damage bonus). Adding 4 damage in if it doesn't change the prior events of the combat is no biggy, but if it means that the creature dropped back in round 3 and everything in the past round has to be redone, forget it. Next time, keep track of your bonuses better players.

Another problem is that John will ALWAYS be tempted at the least to respond 'No'. Depending on John's character, he might always respond 'No' no matter what he originally did. I can't check his work at this point, and I'd rather just remove that temptation from him entirely.

Another problem is that Bob the Cleric has just gone OOC. If I allow this to become common place, players will be strongly tempted to always try to come up with things that other players might have forgotten in order to gain every little advantage that they can. Even if I concede to only 1 in 10 such requests, you can gaurantee someone will spend most of his time meta-gaming instead of gaming and my combats will be intersperced every few seconds with 'Did you remember to apply...', 'Did you remember that my character has...', 'I forgot to add in the...', and 'I cast magic missile at the darkness', and other silly garbage.

And we will never stay IC.

Think of the 'never retcon' rule as being alot like the 'Illegal Proceedure' rule in the game of Blood Bowl. When you are first trying to learn the game, it seems to be the most frustrating and unfair rule immaginable. However, after you play the game awhile you realize that if the IP penalty wasn't so huge, that players would not only be more lax and less careful than they are (resulting in confusion and arguements), some players would always be trying to cheat, and the result would be ultimately that the game would be less fun than it is.

'No retcons' might sound at first to be completely unreasonable, but I think if you try it you might find out why I use it.

 

[jmucchiello]

Another problem is that John will ALWAYS be tempted at the least to respond 'No'. Depending on John's character, he might always respond 'No' no matter what he originally did. I can't check his work at this point, and I'd rather just remove that temptation from him entirely.

I'm done with this conversation. I trust "John" implicitly. Even if I've never gamed with John before I trust him implicitly. If John decides he has to lie to have fun in my game, then there is something much more fundamental wrong with the game and I'd rather not play than have to worry if my players are lying to me when they say how much damage they do.

Another problem is that Bob the Cleric has just gone OOC.

So? In all the years I've played, I've found that be light with the IC/OOC stuff makes the IC stuff that much better. If you are always IC when you play then you cannot high-five the magic-user when he takes down the bad guy with one of his darts. High-fiving doesn't exist in most fantasy campaigns. I'm having fun with my friends, first and foremost. The campaign world be danged. Continuity smontinuity. IC stuff is important when there are NPCs around. But in the middle of combat, I'd rather be fair then require strict IC. I play with people who separate character/player knowledge without being asked. I've had wizards fireball an area where the player knew the rogue was hiding because his character had no clue. I trust my players to play correctly and I find a mix of table talk and game talk far more fun than strict IC always playing. YMMV.

 

[Psion]

Once the game is in rules debate mode going back in time is no more jarring than picking up from where you left off.

Ah, but by making all mistakes final and pressing on with the game instead of worrying about how to rewrite history and saving any clarifications until after the game, you avoid disrupting the game in the first place.

It's a game. Those actions are also retconned. Continuity is great if you are watch Babylon 5. Me, I'm in the dining room with my 5 friends.

Bully for you. We look for some depth in our gaming experience.

Method acting is for people who cannot act. I'm not an immersive role-player. The occasional OOC quip doesn't send me into a rage.

And this has what to do with what we were discussing? You don't have to be a method actor to have immersion. Immersion is about the experience that the players have. If they players can get caught up in the action and story of the game and not be distracted by rules minutia, the game is that much more enjoyable IMNSHO.

How is manipulating things behind the scenes not retconning?

Because it is less artificial and less jarring than hitting the rewind. I thought that much is obvious.

I didn't respond to the Karma thing because I consider it hookier[sic] than just fixing the mistake when it happened.

I vehemently disagree. Retconning is much more hoaky that merely making it up to the players.

You are rewriting the events that happened. He died. No, wait a minute, he didn't.

What? "Rewriting events that happened" is retconning; not what I do.

I run my game by a sort of Schrodinger principle: if nobody saw it, it didn't happy. This is very convenient from a story flow standpoint.

Perhaps it would help if I point out an important house rule I use: Players do not know when their PCs die (and it's not always at -10; when a character dips below 0 hp, I make a secret con roll to determine how far below zero they can go). All they know is what I tell them, and nothing is set in stone until I tell the players the results. All they know is their character fell down. Any adjustement I do is entirely behind the scenes and does not disrupt the flow of the game.

For some reason you feel this retconning has to take place in the game because time immutably travels forward. Me, I like time to be fluid.

Well that is not my preference, for reasons already stated.

 

[jmucchiello]

Bully for you. We look for some depth in our gaming experience.

I would appreciate it if you did not insult me by saying my gaming experiences are shallower than yours.

Immersion is about the experience that the players have. If they players can get caught up in the action and story of the game and not be distracted by rules minutia, the game is that much more enjoyable IMNSHO.

We play out combat out in a highly tactical fashion. This cannot be done without rules minutia. We play out our NPC conversation IC. We only make charisma skill checks when someone is trying to do something that would be easy for the smarmy bard but the player just isn't a good actor.

Because it is less artificial and less jarring than hitting the rewind. I thought that much is obvious.

The whole concept of being wizards and knights and such is artificial. I prefer that the continuity be corrected rather than there being a glitch that was somehow fixed by karmic forces.

I vehemently disagree. Retconning is much more hoaky that merely making it up to the players.

We don't agree then. Retconning makes the history correct. In your world, if the same action happens twice with all the same variables, different actions can occur (the worst of which will be fixed in future when Karma catches up with it). In our version, we retconn the mistake and thus when the same action occurs twice in our game, the result is always the same. This is why I consider pressing forward hoaky. I prefer that X -> Y is immutable. If by mistake we discover that X -> Z by mistake, retconning puts it back to X -> Y.

Players do not know when their PCs die (and it's not always at -10; when a character dips below 0 hp, I make a secret con roll to determine how far below zero they can go). All they know is what I tell them, and nothing is set in stone until I tell the players the results. All they know is their character fell down.

I have played your way.* I have played my way. When I did it your way, I had time to play multiple times / week for many hours at a time. Now I have little time to play and I prefer that the world I play in is always consistent.

In any case, I doubt we will agree. My life is too short to worry about the occasional OOC comment. You find that this affects your own enjoyment of the game. So be it. As long as everyone walks out of the game having had more fun than when they arrived. All is good.

* I actually went way beyond your way. I ran a game where no one had their own character sheets. No one rolled dice. It was a complete storytelling game. The players wrote a character history and I made up characters based on the history. (It was a HERO system game, though they didn't know it until afterwards.)

 

[Harlock]

A lot depends on the situation. Sometimes my DM surprises me with things like monsters with cool feats I would not suspect. Creatures behaving a little differently than you normally expect. It shocks me at times, but I am getting used to it. Last time I only shot him the bird one time behind the screen!

Seriously though, our group is still learning D&D 3e even after a while of playing it. We still take time to look stuff up on ocassion. We change our game plan sometimes. We retcon when we need to. DMs aren't infallible. I hope MY players call me on things because I want to know when I flub up. I also understand (from bad experience) that arguments can really ruin a session so I tend to hold off on things for the most part, or reach an in game compromise quickly with the promise to examine it later and make a more permanent ruling on things. It's okay to make mistakes. Everybody does. Oh hush, you do too.