When should players challenge the DM and when should they be quiet?

[Norfleet]

I prefer it when players attempt to argue with me. It means that I don't have to do as much work. If we can sidetrack the session for 30 minutes over a pointless rule argument that I eventually win anyway, I can make the player look stupid, and save myself a lot of work. I can further drag the argument out by mumbling a lot and going off on random tangents. This way, even if I don't win the argument, I was clearly too exhausted to be thinking straight anyway. Either way, I save a lot of work as the adventure I prepared can be extended for longer, meaning I have more time to think of what to do next.

In fact, this is a very good technique if you're stumped as to what to do next and need to buy time: Create an egregious rule blunder. A player will surely call you on it. Drag this out into an extended argument, conceding the point only when you've come up with what you want to do next.

 

[Acid_crash]

As a GM it does bother me sometimes when a player challenges me when I make a decision and say its final. I also don't like it when a player challenges me about my adventure or game when something bad happens to their characters and they feel as if I'm doing things on purpose just to get them.

During a game I usually give one to three minutes for a player to state their argument, usually less time if its in the middle of combat, but I will always listen. Then I make a decision, and its final. Players should respect that, but I know that some don't, especially when my decision goes against them.

 

[the Jester]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, actually, because I have one player who tends to mouth off a lot. By which I don't mean he's offering legitimate challenges- I mean he's assuming that he knows it all and he's caught me cheating.

Well, bull****.

Beyond the point that nobody knows it all and the dm can't cheat (unless he uses the rules differently for pcs than for npcs), in each aggravating instance he was challenging issues that were perfectly clear and he was very pissy about it.

For example, when the party found out about an issue (in 3.0) with simulacra exceeding the power of their creators, he burst out with, "There's no rules for that!"

(Rule: multiple empowerment of simulacrum. Doesn't work anymore for multiple reasons- simulacrum doesn't have numeric variables and you can't stack the same metamagic feat. But in 3.0 it worked fine.)

Another example: the pcs were fighting a dragon that they thought was a shadow dragon, but then it breathed lightning.

Pissy player: "Can you apply the half-dragon template to a dragon?"
Me: Devilish grin.
Pissy player: "That's so stupid. That's so against the rules."

(Rule: a half-dragon dragon is specifically mentioned as a way to simulate crossbreeds in Savage Species.)

So basically, don't challenge the dm if you don't understand how it works. Challenge the dm if you think he's using a double standard either for or against the pcs, or if he isn't treating all the pcs the same, or if he makes a major mistake or a ruling that invalidates a chunk of your character build. But always, always accept that he may make rulings that you don't agree with. And if it's a big deal talk about it after the game's over or on a break, but let it go during the game.

 

[shilsen]

This is hw I handle it:

I'm fine with players challenging me at any point. I especially want them to do that when I've forgotten a particular rule, but even when someone disagrees with a particular interpretation, I think it's fine for someone to speak up. And once I've considered what the player says and made a decision to agree or not, the player should be quiet. If he has a problem with the ruling and needs a further discussion, then we discuss it when we break for lunch or after the session.

 

[Mark]

The word "challenge" suggests an adversarial relationship that need not be present in roleplaying games on a meta-game level.

If some advice or assistance is to come from a player, it is best to proffer it if and when it will not disrupt the DMs ability to facilitate the game. It's amazing how a mindset can influence the tenor of such assistance, so it is preferable to alter that mindset prior to advising a DM and avoid putting them on the defensive (a natural reaction to a challenge).

Also, it is polite to ask if a suggestion can be offered beforehand. There may be other things in play of which you are unaware.

Discussion post game is usually preferred and once the relationship develops to a point where suggestions are not seen as a challenge, they can usually be given more seemlessly during play at future sessions.

Just some thoughts...

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

People who use the title "DM" to soothe their ego by making it an outlet for megalomania annoy me. As do people with the philosophy "The DM is always right". So someone corrects the DM on what die of damage a weapon does, or makes a suggestion for a house rule. Big Deal. That's what makes the game fun. Not to say that the DM can't alter rules and be the definite authority on calls, but the reason we're playing Dungeons and Dragons is because we like the rules to it, and if the DM doesn’t, he can change them. I’m glad I have two DMs who don’t mind being corrected and enjoy finding out what the Player’s Handbook has to say. The D20 rules are complicated, and players and DMs both mess up. If the DM says "I'm declaring that the Greataxe does a d10 instead of a d12", that's one thing. But the DM getting pissy because a player informs him that he made a mistake about the greataxe is another.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Typically, if you're going to challenge, try to do it durning a slower moment. There's no point in interrupting a smootly flowing game to start arguing over rules. But if you're split up in town anyway, then it's not so bad.

My particular moment of questioning the DM came after the rogue in our party failed her third attempt at lockpicking. I suggested that she take 20. When she agreed, the DM said "Ok. Roll disable device."

Needless to say, I wanted to clarify that he knew what taking 20 was about. Since we were at a door anyway, it was ok, and only took a minute or so to straighten things out.

 

[Haradim]

If the DM makes an egregious mistake that is going to fundamentally alter the campaign, then challenge him.

If the DM forgets some minor rule that will make little difference, then don't bother.

Pretty much where I sit.

It would take something rather severe and immediate (a PC *will die* if I continue blundering along, etc) for me to allow an objection to interrupt the game. They tend to take too long as it is

It does have to be a botch on my part though, and not a whine because they ended up getting their rears handed to them fair and square, for example.

If it isn't really a big deal though, or if I have specific reasons for doing something that won't be revealed to the players, I'll tell them to wait until later to discuss it, rather than sidetrack the game.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

The word "challenge" suggests an adversarial relationship that need not be present in roleplaying games on a meta-game level.

If some advice or assistance is to come from a player, it is best to proffer it if and when it will not disrupt the DMs ability to facilitate the game. It's amazing how a mindset can influence the tenor of such assistance, so it is preferable to alter that mindset prior to advising a DM and avoid putting them on the defensive (a natural reaction to a challenge)....

What Mark said.

If you start off with "You're wrong!" that's heading down the Me vs. DM road. (I have a player who for years thought that it was him vs. the DM. It's not. This is a group story.) Don't.

If you want to say "Excuse me, I think you missed something?" and give me a quick cite, that's perfect!

Nobody's memory is perfect. I love it when a player helps out with a rules question. My skills improve and everyone feels that it's fair. Just don't make it adversarial.

The distinction in the thread about major/minor is also really key. Send an email or talk after the session. One trick that a good DM can use is if you the player raise the question, but someone else could act while you look it up, suggest that you do that.

 

[DMScott]

I agree with the folks who say challenge the DM during the session if it's some huge game-breaking issue, otherwise it's best to leave it for outside the game or at least outside the action. I'll add the provision that I personally have never seen such an issue, on either side of the screen - my standing policy as DM is that my ruling holds in the middle of the action and if necessary we revisit it later, and I try to give other DMs the same leeway.