When and how do you tell a DM he is possibly in error?

[kalani]

In respect to dexterity saving throws - creatures would benefit from cover (and 3/4 cover) to their dexterity saving throws. If they are standing behind another creature, the DM could rule they have cover (although I wouldn't do this myself in respect to things like fireball - but something like a lightning bolt, definitely).

 

[Pauper]

Here's the thing -- as a player, you don't have the ability to insist that your reading of the rules is the correct one, even if there is no significant difference between your reading of the rule and the text of the rule itself. The ALPG has noted since the beginning that "[a] DM's ruling at the table is considered final for the purpose of that play session." The DM is always right, even when the DM is demonstrably wrong.

So the idea that "the DM is not playing by the rules" is itself flawed -- the DM is the only person at the table who has the authority to decide what the rules are for that play session. It is true, though, that if you find yourself constantly in disagreement with a DM over what the rules are, you probably should at the very least try to avoid sitting at a table with that DM in the future, and if it gets really bad, then withdraw from the event, taking no rewards from the adventure.

I will say that, in my experience, pointing out a rules reference to the DM from the actual Player's Handbook usually solves any disputes, since most DMs do want to run games according to the official rules. However, just because you have a specific interpretation of how a given rule works (such as Acrobatics to try to trip enemy combatants), the DM is under no obligation to agree to your interpretation, especially if she feels the result is abusive.

I've had DMs tell me that sneak attack dice are not doubled on a critical hit, that darkvision doesn't work without a light source, and that the Spare the Dying cantrip failed when used on a clearly dying but not yet dead NPC. I've learned that I tend to enjoy play sessions more when I let those things go and focus on what's coming, rather than fighting a battle that I don't have the authority to win and then letting that frustration color the rest of the game session.

'Expect table variation' is not just good advice, it's a way of life.

--
Pauper

 

[Warmaster Horus]

,,,

'Expect table variation' is not just good advice, it's a way of life.

--
Pauper

Well said. There are a wide array of folks DMing AL out there and they all have their history with D&D, the rules and how they run a game. If I run into a rules misunderstanding with a DM while playing I'll briefly bring up my interpretation but then expect to have to roll with the DM's decision. It's not worth it to get too bent out of shape over (mostly) little stuff - adapt, overcome & improvise and have a good time gaming. That said, I usually avoid playing with DMs that I think have 'eccentric' takes on the rules from that point on. There is a subset of DMs in AL who are a bit too autocratic and hidebound for my tastes.

While DMing if a player brings up a difference of opinion on a rules issue I have a process that's worked well for me. If it's a situation I'm not too clear about I give the player a minute or two to provide clarification from the rule book or errata. If they can't, or it's a difference of opinion based on wording and I prefer my interpretation, then that's how it rolls. If a player grouses too much about that, and there have those who do, I give them a warning about not disrupting the game and if they persist, they're gone. I've got other players who are trying to enjoy the game and none of us need our time wasted with someone who can't accept a DM ruling. I always allow a player time to more fully present their side AFTER the game if they want to continue the discussion and couldn't convince me earlier.

 

[ccs]

If it's a clear rules issue, I'll talk about it right there, with text backup if need be. If they resist, I just let the issue go unless it's really important (e.g. someone's life is on the line).

For adventure text problems and judgment differences, I just let the DM run with it unless it's extremely important. If they mess up on Detect Magic, oh well. If they try to have a Succubus use Draining Kiss to kill a character who isn't charmed (which I've seen happen multiple times), I'm going to speak up about it.


Your character also doesn't know the rules of the game, or the fact that there's a DM at all. These are all metagame issues, so character doesn't really enter into it.

Don't play stupid, you know what I mean. There's a difference between mechanical/rules issues & alterations to stories I already know.

 

[NeverLucky]

Don't play stupid, you know what I mean. There's a difference between mechanical/rules issues & alterations to stories I already know.

Disagree.

I, the player, am playing a game. If the DM makes a mistake on a metagame level that can severely impact my experience in a negative way and goes against the text of the adventure, then I will bring it up. Character has nothing to do with this. If the DM accidentally uses a Succubus's Draining Kiss on a PC that isn't charmed, I'm definitely bringing that up, regardless of whether my character would know anything about Succubi. Similarly, if the DM adjusts Quelling the Horde as if it's balanced for a level 1 party (a mistake in the text), I'm going to tell them about it.

 

[Anthraxus]

Depends. If it's a rules mistake that I'm 100% sure about that will kill a character, I will point it out then and there. If I'm 99% sure (or less), I will quickly look it up and show them the rule out of the book.

If it's nothing serious, I will look it up and point it out during a lull after the combat, or after the game. I want other DM's to be as knowledgeable about the rules as they can be. If I am DMing and in the wrong, I hope they do the same as I would. I will generally keep going and ask if someone can look up the rule.

Rules-lawyering an ambiguous rule is different though, and falls under the purview of "Table Variation", which is fine- I'd rather keep the game moving and fun instead of arguing rules, whether I'm a DM or player.

 

[Jabborwacky]

'Expect table variation' is not just good advice, it's a way of life.

--
Pauper

The problems emphasized at the start go above and beyond simple table variation and becomes particularly problematic in the case of the third part. It is entirely possible a player character's story and background can only be represented by a particular interpretation of a skill or rule. In my case I had created a wizard conscripted into the Myth Drannor/Thultanthar conflict and I needed some mechanic to represent the kind of defensive combat training a mage might receive in the process. I'd encountered discussions on the possible martial aspects of the acrobatics skill, so I made it part of my background.

After having been informed about the character no less than three times and raising no issues with the interpretation of the acrobatics skill in relation to my character background, he performs a one-eighty on the matter in the middle of combat the very first time the issue comes up. He has now potentially wasted my time or PKed my character simply because I reasonably assumed I could perform certain combat maneuvers with the acrobatics skill in place of athletics. How would a player feel if a DM suddenly decided magic missile doesn't exist when an enemy wizard is casting the spell that will most likely kill their level 6 AL character?

 

[Pauper]

How would a player feel if a DM suddenly decided magic missile doesn't exist when an enemy wizard is casting the spell that will most likely kill their level 6 AL character?

That's not an equivalent situation -- in this case, you're saying that a DM is actively preventing you from using a rules option that is explicitly allowed. What you're complaining about is that a DM didn't agree with your alternative rules interpretation, which is absolutely allowed, even if the player's entire character concept is built around that alternate interpretation.

AL is not the place to be playing fast-and-loose with the rules of the game. Save that for the home game. You'll be happier, for starters.

--
Pauper

 

[Steve_MND]

That's not an equivalent situation -- in this case, you're saying that a DM is actively preventing you from using a rules option that is explicitly allowed. What you're complaining about is that a DM didn't agree with your alternative rules interpretation, which is absolutely allowed, even if the player's entire character concept is built around that alternate interpretation.r

I would tend to agree with Pauper on this one, I don't see those two examples as being equivalent either. Being able to use a skill to do certain 'exotic' maneuvers in combat (or whatever you're trying to accomplish there) is always going to be a DM-perogative kind of thing. Mind you, it was a bit of a dick move to (as you described) agree to a certain interpretation before the game started, and then to suddenly ignore that, but that's an issue with the DM, not the game or AL.

I don't know the exact things you were trying to do with the Acrobatics Skill, but I'm guessing if it's something like the equivalent of things that the game already provides for in some other fashion -- such as, for example, the Warcaster Feat, or a Battlemaster's Maneuvers, or a Rogue's free bonus Disengage, etc. -- it's unlikely most DMs would casually let you use the Acrobatics skill to replicate similar effects -- you're expected to actually acquire those specific abilities by multiclassing, taking a Feat when applicable, etc.

Any design that is solely based around a single element or ability -- and which the player would find to be 'unplayable' without -- is a dangerous foundation to build a character around to begin with and certainly not an approach I would suggest, AL or not. Depending on the level of the character, you way want to think about either using a rebuild or a different set of level progression down the line to broaden the character's techniques somewhat.

 

[kalani]

The problems emphasized at the start go above and beyond simple table variation and becomes particularly problematic in the case of the third part. It is entirely possible a player character's story and background can only be represented by a particular interpretation of a skill or rule. In my case I had created a wizard conscripted into the Myth Drannor/Thultanthar conflict and I needed some mechanic to represent the kind of defensive combat training a mage might receive in the process. I'd encountered discussions on the possible martial aspects of the acrobatics skill, so I made it part of my background.

After having been informed about the character no less than three times and raising no issues with the interpretation of the acrobatics skill in relation to my character background, he performs a one-eighty on the matter in the middle of combat the very first time the issue comes up. He has now potentially wasted my time or PKed my character simply because I reasonably assumed I could perform certain combat maneuvers with the acrobatics skill in place of athletics. How would a player feel if a DM suddenly decided magic missile doesn't exist when an enemy wizard is casting the spell that will most likely kill their level 6 AL character?

DMs are not allowed to change the rules in AL. They can make rulings on something the rules do not cover, or in the case of ambiguous rules. The Shove action is quite explicit that initiating a shove (or grapple) requires an Athletics check (opposed by Athletics or Acrobatics).

Your character concept cannot force DMs to abide by alternative rules, no matter how much you may wish it to. If one DM allowed you to make shove actions using acrobatics, great. Take it as a freebie - but don't expect it at other tables. Nothing in your background can allow you to be a special snowflake when it comes to adjudication of the rules.

Players using Green Flame Blade or Animate Dead should expect table variation even when using their spells correctly, as does any player making use of any other ambiguous rule in the game. Any character built around such concepts should have the maturity to realize that their performance will vary from table to table, and adjust their tactics accordingly. If they absolutely must have it be 100% reliable, they should simply play those concepts in a home game.

A character built around a House Rule (which is what acrobatics-based shoves are) OTOH, should not expect table variation. They should expect their concept to work exactly as written in the PHB - with shove actions requiring the character to make an athletics attempt.