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

[Dracolich]

Let's see...DM's can cheat, such as by making a monster more powerful halfway through the encounter when the PC's begin to breeze through it, or by having that non-integral to the storyline wizard cast dimension door when he never even had it in his spellbook to begin with, amongst other things...

That's right a DM can cheat. That's why every rules infraction that is caught by a player should be challenged, regardless if the infraction is large or small. Everytime a rules infraction goes unchallenged it just gives the DM more opportunities to try and get away with stuff like that mentioned above. DM's shouldn't cheat like that above just because it may upset their precious storyline. If you're a DM that does cheat like that, then you're a lousy DM and should give up your screen.

 

[Gizzard]

I agree with that - as DM I'd hate to think I killed a PC because of some error the player knew about but didn't dare point out!

Would you hate to think you killed a monster because of some error a player knew about but didn't care to point out? ;-)

I figure over the course of time my DMing errors will average out; sometimes favoring the PCs, sometimes the monsters. But certainly the players are thinking harder about the letter of the rules when they are losing a combat than when they are winning. Just human nature I suppose.

 

[Mordane76]

That's right a DM can cheat. That's why every rules infraction that is caught by a player should be challenged, regardless if the infraction is large or small. Everytime a rules infraction goes unchallenged it just gives the DM more opportunities to try and get away with stuff like that mentioned above. DM's shouldn't cheat like that above just because it may upset their precious storyline. If you're a DM that does cheat like that, then you're a lousy DM and should give up your screen.

This is a very adversarial position -- you phrase it like 'DM mistakes' are conscious plans committed just to screw players. Just because a DM CAN cheat, doesn't mean that a DM DOES cheat, and if you've had a DM that has done things like this in the past, it doesn't mean that all DMs do things like this. I'd go so far to say that a player who has the attitude you outline above from the get-go is a bad player and should give up his hobby.


DMs are human -- we make mistakes. I don't know how many people have pointed out the complexity and breadth of material in the core rules, but when you couple that with a regular work schedule and other things that cut into a DM's pre-planning time and their ability to retain statistical information, it's bound to happen that a DM will forget something. If a player knows the rule, and knows where to find it fast, they are more than welcome to point it out, tell me where to look, and I'll be happy to correct the oversight immediately. If a player THINKS I've made a mistake, and it's an important point of contention, we'll stop and look it up. But if we're in the middle of a combat, and I've ruled that a particular location gives 3/4 cover, and the player thinks that because of it's size and his "careful positioning" that is should be 9/10 cover, I'll stop, think about it, and if I agree he gets it. If I don't agree, he doesn't -- and if he doesn't like that, he can talk to me about it after the game. If he insists on becoming confrontational and making a scene about it in the middle of the combat, and thus making everyone else have to sit there and listen to him complain about my unjust ruling, I have no compunctions about telling him to pack his books up and go home for the night. DMing is supposed to be fun as well, and nagging and arguing over a call is not fun for the DM, and it's not fun for the people who have to sit through it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Life or death = challenge

Stupid little things /= challenge

What he said, although stupid little things should be mentioned later since it might be something the GM wants to know about but didn't/forgot. I personally would like to hear from a GM (and thus am more than willing to state as a GM) if it was a mistake or simply a change that wasn't announced but should have been.

The side issue of GM's cheating: So what?

There are more than a few people that do play D&D for the story element (after all, the engine is there to facilitate the game, not the other way around) more than fullfilling self-empowerment exercises, and for those who do, a little switch-a-roo from the GM to keep things from being too easy isn't a bad thing. Most certainly, if a GM sets up an encounter and it ends up being too tough, I would hope the GM would find a way of rectifying the error before the unintentional but now inevitable tpk occurs (and, obviously, the better the GM, the less cheesy the solution will be). And like it or not, the DMG recommends it!!!

DM cheating can get out of hand when it turns into hand-holding, railroading, or breaks any semblence of world consistancy. Otherwise, if it isn't obvious to the players and makes for a better story, than so what? Stop worrying about your XP total and play some more.

 

[Wycen]

I think it is acceptable to challenge the DM when your character cracks a door open to peak inside and you see 2 beholders floating in the room and he says, "They shoot at you with all 10 rays. Each."

 

[reiella]

I think it is acceptable to challenge the DM when your character cracks a door open to peak inside and you see 2 beholders floating in the room and he says, "They shoot at you with all 10 rays. Each."

Hehe, ironically I've had a similiar situation with Retriever demons, although I just used their pair of rays... Which is ironically supported and resulted in much pain.

 

[Norfleet]

Would you hate to think you killed a monster because of some error a player knew about but didn't care to point out? ;-)

I figure over the course of time my DMing errors will average out; sometimes favoring the PCs, sometimes the monsters. But certainly the players are thinking harder about the letter of the rules when they are losing a combat than when they are winning. Just human nature I suppose.

Well, there's one important difference: You have a very large supply of monsters, and not all that many players. Since the game can seriously bog down if players die at inopportune moments, whereas nobody is going to really remember Orc #315, it's not quite as a big a problem if an error favors a player. However, if you WANT to stall for time, intentionally committing a rule blunder or two and having a player look up the actual rule for you is definitely a good way to do it. If you do it this way, and then allow him to correct you, you simultaneously put the onus of stalling the game on the player, and look good by being willing to admit your own "mistakes". This means that this stalling tactic can be continually employed throughout your DMing career.

 

[WizarDru]

Like Mark pointed out, not all of us view the relationship of DM and player as a contentious, adversarial one. My players correct me on rules changes regularly, but usually in the context of 'Did you remember...?'. With 23rd level characters, 20+ spells in operation, 6 players, dozens of feats, magic items and skills all in use...there's a lot to keep track of. 6 players are intimate with their facets of the system, but the DM needs to know all of it, and it can be a lot to manage. Ask the cleric player how turning checks work, and he'll have your answer from memory. Ask the rogue's player, and she'll stare at you and reach for the PHB.

If I tell a player, 'Yes, I know that, he has a feat or spell that compensates for that', then we move on. We have several running jokes in the game, and one of them is the arcane archer asking if there 'are any invisible mooncalves in the room?'. I had forgotten in one adventure that she had See Invisibility running constantly, and we reversed the beginning of the combat, as he would have seen the creature otherwise.

DMs are not infallible, and hopefully everyone's having enough fun together that they can decide where the proper mix lies. In my game, speed is of the essence, so we keep rules decisions to a strict time-limit. I enlist players for specific rulings research in-game, and I make the most logical guess at that time. later, we review and decide what the right decision should be from that point.

My players correct their own mistakes as much as mine, too. We're all friends, and with several children spread out amongst us, full-time careers and limited time to play, we don't have time to waste on lengthy in-game rules discussions.

That's what we have forums for.

 

[takyris]

After a long run of straight DMing, I've switched to DMing one game while playing in another (same group, alternating weeks). My eyes have officially been opened.

Not that I was bad before. I was open to questioning (as opposed to direct challenges). Direct challenges made me defensive if delivered in an adversarial way, but questions are fine.

Example:

Me: The creature avoids all but a little graze of your greatsword.

Them: That's stupid! You're letting it live because you want to do more plot stuff!

(bad)

Me: The creature avoids all but a little graze of your greatsword.

Them: Okay, I've swung a greatsword a lot of times in my career as a paladin. Did this feel like he dodged most of it with his skill, like he's got a lot of hit points? Or did this feel like I should have hit him harder, but something made it not hurt as much.

Me: Good question. You really thought you had him, and you're not sure why your blade slowed down as much as it did right before hitting him.

(good -- I neglected to mention the fact that the creature had DR, and the player made an excellent case for his character knowing about DR)

As a DM, I've gotten a lot better at describing things to my players after playing and being penalized for not asking to look at things I thought I didn't have to look at. We lost treasure for burning the body of a wererat. I didn't think that my character would have just burned the body if it had pouches and bags on it, but I wasn't told, and I didn't know to ask. Now, as a DM, I try to be very clear about what people see, and am very forgiving about the "Oh, if I'd known that he was glowing bright red, I wouldn't have charged him" thing.

With regards to rules stuff, we've played long enough now to have a pretty good grasp of how things work. I forestall most problems on tricky things by having other people do the work for me.

Wizard: I cast my spell.

Me: The monster uses its readied action to move into a grapple.

Wizard: D'oh.

Me: It succeeds on its hit, and then, with its grap... wait, you've got Deflection. Would deflection help your grapple check? Rogue, you're not up for awhile. Read up on it for us, would you?

Wizard: Can I draw my wand and use it without penalty in the grapple?

Me: Got me. Check up on it. We'll assume you're grappling at least for the rest of this turn. Meantime, it's Fighter-dude's turn...

The players don't argue me with me, now, because they're checking up on stuff for each other -- people who are waiting for their next turn volunteer to look up encumbrance rates while the person whose turn it is goes through his strategy. We all know enough about the rules to be generally cool, and I've built up enough DM cred that if I do something weird, I get a question to clarify, not a complaint:

Them: "Okay, so, normally in this world, Dispel Magic works like it does in the book, right? d20 + level against 11 plus caster's level? So if this is something different, do I get any feeling for that?"

Me: "Sure. You get the sense that this magic might have some odd feeling about it that's making it harder to Dispel." (Translation: Yes, I know, I'm having it not work the normal way, and I'd like you to trust that I'm not just screwing you over.)

Them: "Right. I'd like to head back to the town and look up instances of magic that is buffered against normal Dispels. Maybe the cleric could look up curses and see if there's something special there?"

And so forth.

Collaboration, cooperation, trust. You get that, everything else is just logistics.

 

[Kichwas]

In another thread you aksed me:

"You must have a wonderful group where people are free to speak their minds."

My answer to this thread reflects on that question. Here's a few of the 'rules of the table' for my group:

• If you don't agree with my ruling let me know and we will pause to discuss, but be prepared to argue your point from a correct-subject educated standpoint or quote the appropriate rule, with book and page number references so we can all be clear on it.
• I'm here to keep the story and game flowing in a fun and fair manner, not look up rules. From time to time I will task a non-active player to look something up and quote it for us.
• If you're having fun, let me know. I tend to underjudge the impact of my games and burn out over it. Once I've burned out, it's too late to let me know how much fun you were silently having...
• If you're not having fun, let me know. If I don't know of the problem I can't very well fix it.
• Personal issues with other members of the group will cause somebody to be disinvited if they are not resolved. Resolving them is not my responsibility unless they involve me.

So... I expect players to challenge my rulings when they feel I am wrong. In fact I invite them to do so, and invite them to be responsible for tracking rules. In additions I ask them to be honest about how they feel the game is going, and to ensure personal issues do not intrude.

I find it is best for a group if issues are resolved, rather than left for people to boil up over.