what do you do when you don't coincide with your DM

[dreaded_beast]

For me the real trick is simply to wait till after the game then express my thoughts, whether the Dm listen or not, at least I have let him know how I feel. I know that as a Dm I am much more likely to listen to a player if he asks me after the game then when he challenges me in the middle of the game.

my DM has mentioned that this is usually the best thing to do in our game too.

in my case, i usually don't bring up the ruling after game session (unless it is an issue i care about), because i am unsure of how my DM will react at times. if the ruling during the game was left on a "sour" note, i don't really want to revisit the issue, even if it is after game and "irritate" the DM further. also, the actual session itself usually ends on a good note, so it would be kind of awkward in my opinion to open up a can of worms again by questioning the DM again. (unless it was an issue i cared about or feel needs some kind of resolution. in that case i just suck it up and try to talk to the DM.)

If you are constantly be frustrated by your Dm and his ruling then it may be time to look at the group the Dm and think am I really having fun and enjoying myself. I have left groups in the past where their style just didn't mesh with mine and rather then butt heads or get frustrated, I found it easier to walk away and find a group I can enjoy.

i really do enjoy his games and he is a good DM. at this point, these things, while irritating, are not enough for me to stop playing his game.

i just find that the DM is hard to approach at times even though he claims to be fairly open, which he is for the most part, its just that he doesn't like it if you don't agree with him. if you keep pressing the point he ends up getting irritated.

you have good ideas, keep them coming.

 

[beldar1215]

I think that you need to just be quite and wait until after the game. We had this problem the other night. The DM was wrong on a rule. Another player was argueing with the DM. I knew the player was right and I just kept my mouth shut until after the game. The DM admitted he was wrong but made a call to keep the game going. I don't see where argueing during the game helps it along. There is a time and place for everything. You just need to pick the right time.

Beldar

 

[Arnwyn]

I am probably the one and only DM at all of ENWorld that prefers it if the disagreeing player brings it up right at that moment, during the game.

For me, I *hate* to shaft my players. Hate it. So I have no problem when a player points to the relevant section of the PHB and says, "no, it's like this". In fact, I encourage my players to be "PHB lawyers".

However, I do have a couple of caveats. If you aren't ready with the right page of the PHB, too bad for you - you'll have to wait until after the session if you want to bring it up. Further, I will ignore *and* change to the player's detriment if he/she ever disagrees with a ruling that is from the DMG or MM (or other DM's book). Those books are not their domain during the session. (That's all theoretical, though, as no player has ever done that IMC.)

That's just my group, and we differ wildly from most people out there. But it works for us, as we have a blast and haven't had a single argument about anything, much less a rules argument, in more than 5 years...

 

[pogre]

I rule on something and let everyone make their arguments later. We often create house rules together as we go. I try to be consistent and write down most of the house rules.

If players "bank" on a rule I try to accomodate them as much as possible. If they set up a certain "combo" or schtick for their character and then I rule it will not work I even let them change feats or whatever so they do not feel cheated.

Most of my players are fine with it, although throwing out the old haste did cause some grumbling...

 

[Steverooo]

Well, I can't believe I'm unique, here, but if I have a rules disagreement with a GM, I'll let them know. Right then, right there. Then I will demand that they listen to my side.

Demand? Yes, you "heard" me right. Demand. Contrary to what many have said, it is *NOT* the GM's game, it is supposed to be OUR game. The players are supposed to be treated with respect, too. If the GM is making rulings and not even listening to the player's concerns, then they aren't respecting the players, and aren't concerned with whether or not they are having fun... and if it's not fun, then I should probably be out looking for a new GM.

I have had a GM misunderstand where I was moving (based solely on a typo in the header of a post, not the description of my action), move me to the wrong location (up beside the mage), fireball the mage, tell me I was within the area of effect, roll my save for me, and then assign damage... Naturally, I did not just accept it, or wait until the end of the game. I E-mailed her, told her she'd moved me to the wrong place, but okay, I had taken the damage off, and did she remember my Evasion?

She hadn't, so she took the damage back, but still stuck me by the mage, which wasn't where I wanted to be. Oh well. I didn't like it, but I lumped it.

I have yet to see a game where the GM ordered players to wait until after the game to object. If I ever did, I would object right then: "That won't do us much good, when our PCs are dead." If that angered the GM, he'd have one less player, right there.

In situations where new rules pop up during the game, I object, demand to be heard, then bite down and lump it, if I'm overruled. If it happens repeatedly, I object more strongly, make it plain why, and when the pattern is clearly established as unchanging, I quit.

For minor quibbles, I try to shrug it off. It's the GM's job to place obstacles in our way, and challenge us to overcome them. Many times, I can't (I hate spellslingers, and never play them, if I can avoid it - and sometimes those who do can't/won't handle the situation - nothing I can do about that).

For serious, character-concept-shattering stuff, I have to stop, and ask myself if the game will be any fun. Usually, I find that it won't be, and I will either have to dump the character, or the game. If the game seems otherwise okay, I may just tell the rest of the party to go ahead without me, that my character-concept has been invalidated, and I'm making a new one. If the changes are just too destructive to the type of character I want to play, then I am more likely to just leave the game.

If the GAME isn't fun for me, then there's just no point in sitting through it. I have better ways to waste my time. If the GM doesn't care enough about whether or not I'm having fun to listen to my objections, then they probably aren't the kind of GM I would want to be playing with. Better I go spend the game time looking for a new one.

When I GM, I will listen to the PC's player's objections (even if it means stopping the game), then rule. I expect the GM to do the same for me.

I have played with Killer-DMs, seen 15 characters die in one session, and been fine, later told by him that I was a good player, but gave the DM fits. I have survived other GMs unscathed, and quit their games in disgust.

So, how I respond to a "bad ruling" depends a lot on how seriously it impedes my enjoyment of the game. One GM I know, I have only had one serious arguement with, and never quit a game. A lot of other GMs whose games I have quit, I would never play with, again.

 

[mistergone]

As a GM, I always freely and openly admit up front that I don't know all the rules. I haven't memorized all the spells, or monster abilities, or every nuance of the game. I tell the players that I like to tell a story and describe events and characters, and I like to have fun. I only game to have fun and socialize. I'm more than happy to have a player that knows the rules better than I do. And in fact, almost every single players does know the rules better than I do. I forget stuff, I have trouble memorizing things, and if I never use a particular rule or aspect of the game, I really don't know anything about it. So I encourage players to speak up and point out ant problems. Sometimes, and usually, I take the correct rule and apply it. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I explain why. Sometimes I don't. Just about every game I've ran has been skewed to the player characters anyways, so almost always they are doing pretty good in the game. Sure, I might get them up the tree and out on the limb, and then I might even start throwing rocks at them, but it's always for the story. And if, despite whatever rule, they put on a good show, Fate will smile upon them. So I guess I'm a little free-form with my games. Rules are a tool for me, and a gudieline. Heck, I don't use AoO's, except in specific situations that Feats or common sense might dictate, just as an example to my style. This drives some people bugnuts, but ah, seeing as I'm not even runnign a game right now, I suppose it's moot.

Now as a player, I am a little different. I like to take advantage of whatever rules I can. And by "take advantage" I don't mean abuse, I mean use. If there's a rule that pertains to my character that I don't know about, and somethign comes up where knowing that rule would be handy, well, I wanna know about it. If I feel, as a player, that a rule I do know about has been misused or ignored, I will bring it up in the form of a question.

Take last night's game, for example. In the final battle, a few of our party had been dropped by a Vrock (we're all 4th level). An NPC (well, a PC that was being DM run because the player was yet again absent) finally managed to take it out (after an emergency heal from unconciousness from the party cleric's last CLW), but went down in the process. Most of the surviving members were then fighting the Vrock's boss, a big evil cleric. One of the other players, a ranger, wanted to grab the NPC's sword and use it against the cleric. He was a rare sword and shield ranger, and the DM said he would take a penalty for using the sword, which was a bastard sword (and also one of the two +2 weapons in the party). I piped up "No, if he weilds it two handed, it's a martial weapon." The DM said not according to the rules. So I asked if he had some eratta or whatever, but then I dropped it, because, one, I could have been wrong, or two, he's just not the eratta type of DM, as he runs his games a lil different anyways. Sort of like 2nd ed. style but with the 3E books and stuff. But my point is, I thought it was important, seeing as we were down three party members, and the evil cleric was looking to be really tough. So, that particular rule point was important to me at least, at the time. Incidentaly, my character died when the evil cleric grabbed him and cast some death strike spell that killed us both. Ah well, the DM is letting me play a minotaur for my next character.

Okay, up all night, tired...

 

[the Jester]

I think that a very short discussion of the rule in question is good to clear up misunderstanding. Waiting til after the game for a lengthy discussion is a good idea- you don't want to kill your game's momentum.

The DM's word is law, though. And sometimes things happen for reasons the pcs don't understand (such as when the pcs discovered that they'd plane shifted more than 500 miles from their target destination, with no explanation (though- of course- there's a reason to be figured out in game).

 

[the Jester]

Oh, and one more thing: the one time at which it's really worth stopping to talk it over is if a pc (or a major plot npc) would die from the ruling. Even if they can be raised, the dead character loses a level. If things get to this point, though, a reasonable dm who changed his ruling after the game might be persuaded to waive the level loss as a one-time thing.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Oh, and one more thing: the one time at which it's really worth stopping to talk it over is if a pc (or a major plot npc) would die from the ruling. Even if they can be raised, the dead character loses a level. If things get to this point, though, a reasonable dm who changed his ruling after the game might be persuaded to waive the level loss as a one-time thing.

Oh I can agree if Death or major campaign shift is caused by a strange ruling that is the time to ask a question.
ken

 

[Illuminae]

If I am absolutely sure that I am right and he is wrong, then I just say "The standard rules say this. Do you still want to do that?". If the answer is yes, it's fine for me; I'll remember the ruling for when I can use it to my advantage though!

If I'm not sure or if the rules are open to interpretation, I try to clear up each of the different possibilities, ask the DM which one he's going to use, and go with it.

Basically, I accept any ruling, but I want to make sure there is clarity and consistancy. I never strongly express my opinion about rules during games, so as to avoid arguments, even if the DM is doing something out of whack.

Man, you´re ME!



.......



HEY!



GIVE MY MIND BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!