DM Mistakes

[javijuji]

How do you handle your own mistakes?

I think we have all been in a situation were there is no time to go check for something on a book. Or simply cannot find it so we try to work it out the most logical way. This has happened to me. Specially on nights when internet was out and we didn't have our online material.

Lets say you killed a party member because of a wrongly used rule. Do you revert it? Do you apologize and move on?

[Harugami]

Well if I wrongly killed a player I would give him the choice of somehow divine intervention and him waking up in a coffin with something cool from the other side or I'd have him roll up a new character of the appropriate lvl with money to replace all the stuff he lost.

[Menzath]

When I ( or others in my group DM) we go with whatever the ruling is at the time. I.E. if a book cannot be found everyone looks to the walking rulebook (In this case Me) and generaly takes my word as what is written, if I am unsure and need to look up a rule three of us grab books and start looking it up. If after about 15-20secs we haven't found it, The current DM makes a ruling and we go with it. If at a later point we find that the rules specfy differntly we don't undo what has happended (Especially for combat) but make a note of how it should happen in hte future.

Edit:my spelling R bad.

[Vaz]

Ultimate Cosmic Power. I'm the DM.

I try to smooth it as an intended split, in that it advances the plot in some minor way, or gives some campaign specific boost to the character as a "reward" for dying.

[Khedrac]

There's also a good policy of if a character death occurs spending a few minutes doing a review to make sure nothing got forgotten or mis-applied.

I have lost a character to a DM error in a living campaign, unfortunately the time pressure was such that this did not happen. Everyone was very kind and one of the other players (never met him before or since) used a one-use favor to get my character a raise dead at half price. It does make me feel that the on-death audit is worth doing.

Other mistakes (thankfully I have not killed someone though a mistake that I can recall) I tend to declare it, apologize and carry on using the correct rules. This also applies for the other DMs in the group (I think). We don't usually try to retroactively correct the mistake unless it is critical. We're all friends so it's simpler and less hassle to go "oops" and play on.

[hymer]

I admit my mistake if I've made one. If it's minor, or if it's just too far back to untangle, we just go with what happened. This can cut both against and in favour of the PCs (though rarely at the same time).
I can't recall having ever directly killed a PC because I made a rules screwup. But I can recall plenty of PC deaths coming about as a result of player screwup. And even more that were just plain bad luck.

[andromax]

It's ok to admit you were wrong.. and it's better to act like you think it's hilarious that a PC died because you flubbed a rule than to apologize and revert it. If you feel that bad, have an NPC reincarnate him into a badger for free or something. Or Ressurection, or raise dead and offer him a free +1LA template or something (cheaper, XP-wise than a buy back in some instances).

[Malimar]

I've got a clear rule for a mistake is made (either by me or by the players) and isn't caught within a round or so. The rule is "the effects of the mistake stand, but it works properly in the future."

And yes, this rule once left a character dead (well, down a level after having been resurrected) when he otherwise would have lived. (That one was as much the player's fault as mine -- he didn't understand how his own fly spell worked, and I didn't bother to double-check.)

[Vorr]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Most of the time, when I make a mistake, I'll just acknowledge it when I realize it, explain how it was supposed to work (and that it will work that way in the future) and move on.

If it had a really major impact like killing off a PC it would depend on the situation. If it was feasible to say they weren't really dead (they never found a body, they were turned to stone, etc.) reverting the death would be an option. Otherwise, some sort of divine intervention might work or I might just have to apologize and be a bit more generous (GP, point buy, etc.) about their next character.

[RFLS]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

Chaos: It's worse than tyranny. Claiming that the DM is infallible because of rule 0 is bad DMing, and that's a kind description.

[Gavinfoxx]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

Wow... you sound like a terrible GM for anything designed after AD&D 2nd edition... you could run OD&D, but I don't think you should be spending time anywhere near a D20 game...

[DonDuckie]

If I killed a character, I might feel a little bad...

But I'm not sure which rule I would misinterpret to achieve that result.

If it's just a forgotten bonus; "oh wait, I have +2, so he didn't hit me two rounds ago, so I'm not dead." I go "fine, you're at -5 hp and dying. Remember next time..."

Quick call, and move on...

If I'm adamant about a rule, we go by me... if a player proves me wrong without halting the game significantly, then I usually go by the rule. If the player waits until we're between sessions and is really nice about it, then he gets a reward; item, money, XP, soda...

But mostly: quick call, and move on...

If a character died wrongfully and the player insists, I will most likely retcon it... we're all there to have fun.

[Elycium]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

Man, that´s pretty unfair, no one is infallible and we all make mistakes.
The important thing is not undo what has happened, but learn from the mistake and don’t let it happen again.

[Asteron]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

This is just wrong. Bad DMing all around. I don't care what edition it is, if a DM ever tried that after I quoted a correct rule, I would flat out refuse to leave and spend the rest of the night telling them how dumb he/she is, just to be as obnoxious as he/she is. Then I would steal all of the players away from the game to start my own game because he/she has no business running any game with other people.

[Asteron]

Any game I run has a standing rule that I will make a judgement call during the session and we move on. The rule can be revisted after the session and we will do it right moving forward. This doesn't come up that often, however.

I do allow for a few minutes if there is character death involved if there is any chance they could wiggle out of it. Failed saves and other clear cut answers don't usually get that time.

[Alaris]

This is just wrong. Bad DMing all around. I don't care what edition it is, if a DM ever tried that after I quoted a correct rule, I would flat out refuse to leave and spend the rest of the night telling them how dumb he/she is, just to be as obnoxious as he/she is. Then I would steal all of the players away from the game to start my own game because he/she has no business running any game with other people.

Umm... no. You shouldn't stick around all night when he's told you to leave. That would be when I call the police. :D

But in all seriousness, his game. He can run it how he likes. If he kicks you out, and you insist on staying, then whatever happens to you is your fault.

Anyway, if I make a mistake, it's as simple as "it happened this way for now, and the actual rules will be followed in future events."

I've never had a PC die from this, though a PC 'lived' when he should have died due to a Player-Mistake. I am nice enough to allow this to fly (He used autohypnosis to act like Die-Hard, when he didn't realize it only worked at 0 hit points. So he got off the extra attacks when he should've been down).

Put simply, it won't act as die-hard in the future, but it did this time.

Simple as that. :P

[Chained Birds]

Most of my mistakes involve forgetting something about my players and haphazardly putting them into a situation I thought they could do good in.

"Well, I know the pit is pretty big, but you prepared Fly today right?"
"No... I didn't..."
"... How could a Wizard not prepare Fly?!"
"Didn't think I would need it today. You can only throw so many Fireballs you know."
"..."

But if a player should die due to a bad ruling, I'd never go back on it. Death and stuff happens, though I would give the Player's new PC something as compensation. Usually nothing major (like the legendary +5 sword of awesomeness) more like a minor magic item or a free item that'll be helpful down the line... Like a potion of Fly...

[ArcturusV]

Well over decades of DMing, this has come up a time or two for me. The way I almost always handle it though. "Well... crap. It's kinda late to go reverse it since we've all reacted to it and moved on. Well now we know and it won't happen again. But since I was in the wrong..."

"Sorry I burned down your village, here's some gold." ~Reparations

I give them some little trinket or widget to make up for it. Or allow their new character rolled up to have some relevant background that wasn't in play for everyone else when they made their characters, etc. I did wrong (Or we both did), and they deserve something in return.

Now if someone starts getting all Rules Quote-y on me and slows down games just to quadruple check every rule ever written and such? Usually that comes with an arm punch and "Don't be a ****!" being said at them, particularly if they are slowing down the game over something really, really minor or every time something that involves a dice roll comes up. If it's a "Lets check so I don't die" and we're at a point where coming back from the dead isn't easy peasy yet, I don't care, check away, that's the time that it's WORTH spending ten minutes to check up stuff.

[AuraTwilight]

"Huh, you're right. I did mess that up. Buuut crap, it'd be a hassle to go back and retcon it at this point. Here have a really, really sweet bonus of some sort to compensate for the damage."

Happy player, happy group, happy DM, game keeps chuggin' along.

[scurv]

I tend to try to make them offended player whole, Although I might make them work for it.
So what you made a bad call in your game and they died, Make them play the reaper for a chance to live! We all do it when we DM, Work something out that keeps the game intact and feelings happy.

[mistformsquirrl]

If I muck up there's basically 3 factors to consider:

How long ago did the error occur?

How serious was the error?

What does the player want to do about it?

If it's a recent, serious error, I'm happy to just rewind to the point before it occurred.

If it was a minor thing from 2 sessions ago, we'll probably just move on (and remember for next time).

In the specific case of character death, usually that'd be a rewind; but if the player would rather start a new character I won't stop them, and I'll probably toss some small bonus their way as an "I'm sorry" too. That said if they want their old character back* my solution is probably going to be temporarily having them split off from the party (depending on how they 'died'); and then eventually meeting back up with the party later on.

For example - a level 5 fighter dies to a Gnoll because I misread a stat somewhere, and we don't figure it out until next session. The solution is probably that the fighter was simply unconscious (possibly due to a poisoned blade) rather than outright killed. The fighter will run a side adventure to get back to the party, while the party will go a long without the fighter for awhile.

That kind of thing basically.

*I don't usually kill characters to begin with, because I also don't allow resurrection spells either. It just creates too many narrative oddities. That's just how I do it though.

[Threadnaught]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

First of all, I believe you are an awful DM going by that post alone.

Secondly, my players have been subject to and almost died from. Me forgetting about the Ranger's Favoured Enemy Bonus, the Ranger and Druid's Animal Companions, Initiative Order, the possibility of a single CR1 Skeleton Warrior killing a level 3 Druid and Wizard in a straight fight, both players destroying 2 CR Skeleton Archers and a CR3 Troll Skeleton with no effort, exactly how much they rely on Fire Energy, the Wizard's inability to prepare Fly and the DMPCs they travel around with for exposition... The one they're currently travelling with contributes to combat and utility, he's only 1 level above the Wizard.

[Sith_Happens]

the possibility of a single CR1 Skeleton Warrior killing a level 3 Druid and Wizard in a straight fight

Pretty sure this one's their fault.

[Vorr]

This is just wrong. Bad DMing all around. I don't care what edition it is, if a DM ever tried that after I quoted a correct rule, I would flat out refuse to leave and spend the rest of the night telling them how dumb he/she is, just to be as obnoxious as he/she is. Then I would steal all of the players away from the game to start my own game because he/she has no business running any game with other people.

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"

[Grod_The_Giant]

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"
Who on earth have you been playing with? :smallconfused:

[Rogue Shadows]

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leaves the players wondering if they'll ever be able to accomplish any of their cool builds or tricks, or if you'll just stop them from pulling something off simply because you don't like it.

Player-DM trust a two-way street. The DM has to trust the players not to break the game, but the players have to trust that the DM won't do likewise to their characters.

-------------------------

Now as for me: if the mistake is obvious and called out then and there, then I'll own up to it. If it's a small thing that's not immediately obvious (except to me), I ignore it and trust that if the players notice later, they'll realize that DM or no, I'm only human, and there's only one of me while there's four or five of them.

We have the rulebooks on hand for a reason. When the rules don't cover something, though, then I have final say on how something works. Notably in my particular experience, how fast an object in free fall falls per round had to be house-ruled by me, at least prior to me getting my hands on the Spycraft RPG and finally having a d20 game definitively define falling speed.

[ArcturusV]

It's usually why I ask my players to tell me some Goals before session 1. If it's "I want to use Arcane power to become Omnipotent", I can go, "Um... that doesn't sound like it'd be fun for anyone else. So lets go with No. Or at the very least if you do acquire it, or even get close, you will be NPC retired."

If it's a goal like "Steal everything from the party, slit their throats/sell them out to the badguy, and laugh as I skip off to the nearest house of ill repute with my ill gotten gains", I'd also say Nope.

But hey, cut off the "I don't want you doing this" line before people get 5 levels into a build.

[andromax]

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"
You know these are the 3E and pathfinder forums right? DMs get plenty of leeway and rule-0 around here but what you are saying is ridiculous.


And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

The thing about lying and telling more lies is that eventually you look like a dumb ****.

[Sith_Happens]

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"

By any chance do your players (or, as is more likely, ex-players) frequent this forum? Because there's a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270274) I bet they could contribute to.

[RFLS]

Who on earth have you been playing with? :smallconfused:

Given his play style? Probably no one.

[Gavinfoxx]

"Hi, I am an OD&D / AD&D game master with profoundly different assumptions of what is going on. Mine is a primarily adversarial gaming style, where I am trying to win and make you lose, and you are trying to win and make me lose, and the player characters are given a very, very minimal amount of resources to do so. The assumptions of this game are such that it is player skill in making the best of a bad situation through strategy, that allows things to happen; not the numbers on the sheet. There's no need to roleplay to the intelligence or strategic competence of what your character would know; if you know how to bypass a particular type of acid trap that is found in my games, than all your characters know that. These stories are made about the awesome ways characters die, and how the survivors managed to survive impossible odds through in-game ingenuity, rather than the stories about destined heroes or with any sort of plot armor or anything like that. Make sure to have backup characters, and there is no need to put too much effort into the backstory; the stories are about the stories we make at the game table through what happens when you confront the dungeons I make. Further, I take Gygax's advice, specific to this style of gameplay, that the rules are only suggestions anyway, and that the only rule is that the GM's rule is law, and players are supposed to accept that without question, and nothing else as far as the rules goes matters, and that the game doesn't technically need any rules, even though it has them."

See, Vorr... if you were entirely up-front about the sorts of games you run, and described the assumptions of this style of gameplay, and how it is different than modern games, when trying to find players (say at the post-it board of your FLGS) I bet you would quickly find that there is a reason this style of gameplay has pretty much died out. And I doubt you would find any players that stay with you for the long run.

[Rogue Shadows]

Only game system I know that does Player VS GM well is Spycraft d20, with its Mastermind system, but that's because the GM has certain rules that he has to follow, too, when crafting an evil organization and its head, basically his own character that he runs against the player. It was designed to be Player VS DM.

I love the Mastermind system system. One day when I'm bored (possible) and have a lot of free time (HA!), I'm going to try and port it into 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Having said that...


These stories are made about the awesome ways characters die, and how the survivors managed to survive impossible odds through in-game ingenuity, rather than the stories about destined heroes or with any sort of plot armor or anything like that. Make sure to have backup characters, and there is no need to put too much effort into the backstory; the stories are about the stories we make at the game table through what happens when you confront the dungeons I make.

This can be legitimately a fun way to play, provided that every player knows going in that they're going to be going into this kind of game.

Case and point, I have made it absolutely clear to my players that once we've concluded Red Hand of Doom, they are going into the Tomb of Horrors, and the campaign isn't going to end until the players get through the Tomb. If their characters die, then they roll up new ones. If there's a TPK, then they'll have to roll up a new party.

But they have all of RHoD to have fun with their current characters, and they are fully aware that the Tomb is coming and can prepare appropriately.

To an extent, I think that modern 3.5/Pathfinder-style DMing is a little coddling. Mostly I balance this by never fudging rolls and never doing anything to prevent character deaths, though I don't go out of my way to slay them, either. A character dying isn't usually fun for the player...but on the other side of the DM screen, it's not always easy to see an encounter that should have been challenging and fun for the DM to run to try out new things himself, the way PCs get to, instead turn into, via dumb luck, a pushover (no fun for the DM) or a near-TPK (which is blamed on the DM).

The best DM is knowledgeable, entertaining, reasonably lenient...and just a little sadistic.

[Elycium]

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"

Sorry, but this is wrong, doing this you cut the learning curve from the player, even your own learning, because you dont follow what is said in the books, but creating new laws out of nowhere. You aren`t even trying to look where do you made your mistake.

For me, learning is one of the most important things (even if it is just a game), and you are killing it whit that way of play.

[Deophaun]

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently.
Coincidentally, this is exactly what I think about DMs that cannot admit to mistakes. I also think several other ungracious things about them that are best not repeated here.

[Khedrac]

In some respects I think people are being a little harsh on Vorr - I think what he has written is not necessarily what he meant, however:
I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. Agreed.

And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens''No - this is where you pick up on the word "interpret" and say that you are interpreting it differently.

but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''And this means you are not following your own rules - you - the DM - are the player who is cheating.

One of the things that is most annoying to players is not knowing the rules. Campaigns can work where the players know none of the rules - and that is fine. But if you say "we are playing D&D" (any version) and don't declare the houserule that, say, spring attack does not protect from AoOs by the target on the way in and out of the attack until after a player has taken the feat then they are correct to call "foul".

If you find a combination of choices a player has taken is too powerful for your games then discuss it with them and allow them to choose something else, but to change the rules mid-play is simply wrong. And if the ruling reverses what you have allowed earlier then you are an even worse DM than people above have said....

[ArcturusV]

Along the lines of being a little harsh, the "Nope, Rocks Fall, you all die" is probably hyperbole and not an actual statement of what goes on.

Though yes, as DMs you're often called on to do things in a similar spirit. If someone abuses rules to do something game breaking, you have basically three options.

Let them break the game, until they get bored with their practical Godhood. Then start a new game. Meanwhile everyone else around the table is bored... playing Gameboy, reading, eating pizza, whatever is their distraction of choice other than playing DnD.

Two, "nope" them and make up something on the fly that cancels it out. This is probably seen as the more optimal, standard Third/3.5/PF way of handling things. Though it still probably butthurts the player that was going for their game breaker as they spent a long time trying to set it up just to get "noped" at the last second.

Third, force retirement and tell them to roll up a new character. Which is basically the "nice" way of saying "Rocks fall, you die". Either way, the character is being taken away from the character. The only question is if the character theoretically exists in the campaign world anymore.

Out of the three, I see the first one being the real mistake for a DM to make. You've just basically ended the game of DnD to play the game of "Look How Awesome I am" with the player running the show. No one else is really doing anything or having fun. The group shouldn't exist just for one guy to show how cool he is.

Vorr's style? Leans towards point 3 apparently. Which is fine. Some will prefer point 3, some will prefer point 2.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

Whoa, you people got super hostile based on this. No, his gaming style is not wrong. It's different from your own. That's all. Maybe you don't like it, but there's no need to insult him and his gaming group.

Which is to say, I agree that Rule 0 is the most important rule. I make a lot of ad hoc rulings that the 'rules' do not cover or even goes against the rules. Because it increases the group fun. And that's all that matters.

[Deophaun]

Whoa, you people got super hostile based on this. No, his gaming style is not wrong. It's different from your own. That's all.
I think you missed this in what you quoted.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.
Yes, wasting a player's time because you got on a power trip and had to be all Eric Cartman about your Ah-thor-eh-tie is wrong.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

I think you missed this in what you quoted.

Yes, wasting a player's time because you got on a power trip and had to be all Eric Cartman about your Ah-thor-eh-tie is wrong.
I read through the thread, if you're implying I missed his later posts.

And there's nothing wrong with that either. DM trumps rules. I would greatly prefer a DM to give a reason for the change, but it's not necessary for the sake of group fun to let a player become a rules lawyer because they want things to go a certain way. Again, not wrong, just not what you like from your DM's.

@v Unlike Vorr in his game (and presumably his home), you have no power here, Gandalf th Deophaun

[Deophaun]

And there's nothing wrong with that either. DM trumps rules. I would greatly prefer a DM to give a reason for the change, but it's not necessary for the sake of group fun to let a player become a rules lawyer because they want things to go a certain way. Again, not wrong, just not what you like from your DM's.
You disagreed with me twice! You're kicked from the thread!

FYI: You are aware that nothing you actually posted addresses the point I made, right?

[Alaris]

You disagreed with me twice! You're kicked from the thread!

FYI: You are aware that nothing you actually posted addresses the point I made, right?

Maybe I can then. It's his game style. He can kick players out if he wants.

It's a style you don't like, and that's fine. You don't have to play in his game. Presumably though, he has people who DO play in his game, and enjoy it.

There you go. ^.^

[Deophaun]

Maybe I can then. It's his game style. He can kick players out if he wants.
And no one said that he couldn't.

Presumably though, he has people who DO play in his game.
Presumably, several kids in my high school had girlfriends in Canada. No, we wouldn't know them.

[Alaris]

And no one said that he couldn't.

Presumably, several kids in my high school had girlfriends in Canada. No, we wouldn't know them.

Ooh, claws out. Scary. :P

Regardless, we wouldn't know unless he tells us, and even then I guess you'd have to doubt if it's true, right? Do you do that with any DM? Or anybody who tells you anything? Just curious.

Either way, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I have a DM who doesn't take to the "Rules Lawyering" type. He wants to keep the game rolling, and avoids people looking up X rule, or counteracting his rulings on things. If you don't like it, you can leave. He made that quite clear. And yet, whenever he does choose to run, I accept the invite, because it's a fun game.

I can quite imagine Vorr runs a fun game (or could anyway), and just doesn't want to bog games down with rules lawyering or the like.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

You disagreed with me twice! You're kicked from the thread!

FYI: You are aware that nothing you actually posted addresses the point I made, right?

... The point that he has the authority in the games he runs? I agree completely. Saying it's wrong to exercise that authority as he sees fit is a fallacy. There is no right or wrong, you're not better than him because you're 'more understanding' or 'inclusive' and being snarky and rude isn't going to magically make you better than him

[Deophaun]

Regardless, we wouldn't know unless he tells us, and even then I guess you'd have to doubt if it's true, right? Do you do that with any DM? Or anybody who tells you anything?
Anybody who makes extraordinary claims.

Either way, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I have a DM who doesn't take to the "Rules Lawyering" type. He wants to keep the game rolling, and avoids people looking up X rule, or counteracting his rulings on things. If you don't like it, you can leave.
I have run into the same kinds of DMs. None of them had a two strikes and you're out policy. None of them had an "I'm always right" policy, either. Namely because they knew that calling any questioning of a ruling "Rules Layering" was ridiculous.

So yes, I question the existence of these oh-so-strict DMs that threaten to kick players out over the occasional disagreement and that still manage to have groups. I assume such tales either a) exaggerate the strictness of the DM or b) flat out lie about the groups.

And all that doesn't change the fact that wasting someone's time because you have to be a control freak is W-R-O-N-G.

[Deophaun]

... The point that he has the authority in the games he runs? I agree completely. Saying it's wrong to exercise that authority as he sees fit is a fallacy.
Players who question my rulings get a bullet to the head. Calling that wrong is a fallacy!

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Players who question my rulings get a bullet to the head. Calling that wrong is a fallacy!

Yes. There is no such thing as right or wrong. There is just what you agree with and what you disagree with. That is the nature of reality. Insisting that he is wrong and you are right is no different than he insisting that his rulings are right and a player should leave the game if they continue to disagree. TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU IN PLAIN ENGLISH: IT IS ALL OPINION, NOT FACT.

Now to address your points more closely, since you apparently do not accept someone replying if the reply is not 100% inclusive to everything you say, how exactly is he wasting a player's time?

[Deophaun]

Yes. There is no such thing as right or wrong.
In that case, my assertion that there is, indeed, a right and a wrong, can not be wrong. You might disagree with it, but you have to admit that it is not false. Sorry, your position is ultimately self-refuting.

He is wasting the players time as D&D games are very rarely casual affairs that spring up to pass a sudden span of free time. They require scheduling and, frequently, travel arrangements. Thus, kicking someone because they dared question you could wind up wasting a Saturday afternoon that would have otherwise been spent on going to movie or out with better friends.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

In that case, my assertion that there is, indeed, a right and a wrong, can not be wrong. You might disagree with it, but you have to admit that it is not false. Sorry, your position is ultimately self-refuting. No, it's saying at the end of the day, what you think doesn't matter at all and cannot be right because it's just your opinion. You cannot say what he's doing is wrong, all you can say is that you believe it to be wrong. There is no ultimate wrong.*


He is wasting the players time as D&D games are very rarely casual affairs that spring up to pass a sudden span of free time. They require scheduling and, frequently, travel arrangements. Thus, kicking someone because they dared question you could wind up wasting a Saturday afternoon that would have otherwise been spent on going to movie or out with better friends.Much the same way the player is wasting the group's gaming time by insisting that the rules be followed a certain way?

And might I ask why you think it's wrong for a player to be kicked out of a gaming group for wasting everybody's time but it's completely fine to be abusive and mean to someone you probably will never meet because they do things differently from you in a way that will probably never affect you?

*Except in nonapplied mathmatics, and that's it.

[Alaris]

Players who question my rulings get a bullet to the head. Calling that wrong is a fallacy!

Umm... no. Comparing "Kicking someone out of a D&D game" to "Shooting someone in the head for questioning you" is not the same thing. Not by a long shot. So please, think before you type. One is taking someone's life, the other is removing them from a group of people.

In the "kicking someone out of a D&D game" scenario, they can move on and find a different group of friends, or something else to do.

In the "Shooting someone in the head" would generally kill them. They cease to be. You have ended that person's life.

Are you really trying to make this argument?

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Umm... no. Comparing "Kicking someone out of a D&D game" to "Shooting someone in the head for questioning you" is not the same thing. Not by a long shot. So please, think before you type. One is taking someone's life, the other is removing them from a group of people.

In the "kicking someone out of a D&D game" scenario, they can move on and find a different group of friends, or something else to do.

In the "Shooting someone in the head" would generally kill them.

Are you really trying to make this argument?
I believe he was simply trying to strawman my argument, poorly. However, the distinction between kicking someone out of a gaming group and shooting them in the head is just the degree in which is it considered 'wrong' and the potential consequences (as you stated, hurt feelings vs. murder).

[Krazzman]

Whoa... as I see it/read it Vorr just phrased his posts rather... unwise.

If he stated it beforehand: it's ok. If things will change on a case by case basis where it confuses the player because they thought they were playing a game with defined rules then yes this is "wrong". It wasted the players time reading those rules for this game.

If a character suddenly get's powercreepy and is more powerful than the others it is indeed wiser to ask him to stop than to just rule something against him. It is an entirely different thing if the Player points at a rule "but at page 66 it states" after the DM just said "nope." over and over again. If he said a short thing about it ok, if just nope nope nope then... not.

[Deophaun]

No, it's saying at the end of the day, what you think doesn't matter at all and cannot be right because it's just your opinion. You cannot say what he's doing is wrong, all you can say is that you believe it to be wrong. There is no ultimate wrong.*
Bull. But this is getting far away from the board's purpose. So, we'll just leave it as you are objectively, unequivocally, universally, colossally wrong, and leave it at that.

Much the same way the player is wasting the group's gaming time by insisting that the rules be followed a certain way?
Insisting? How so? By pointing out the rule a whopping TWO times? This isn't the case of someone harping on the same rule over and over and over and over and disrupting a game. This is simply referring to the same thing twice. Dear Pelor, how can a gaming group get past the orc battle if someone dares take 10 seconds to reiterate a rule! That's ten seconds that I will never get back that I was spending watching him move his mini anyway. Multitasking? What's that?

This will be the last time I respond to your posts, because frankly, your moral system is utterly and completely alien to me, and there is nothing to be gained from further discussion that won't result in account warnings.

Are you really trying to make this argument?The statement was that you cannot judge how someone enforces their rulings. Are you saying that it is wrong to murder players to enforce a ruling? Are you saying such enforcement can be judged as right or wrong?

By all means, read Gnomish Wanderer's reply. He calls it a strawman, but then goes back to calling it "wrong" with scare quotes. Yes, that is his position. In Gnomish Wanderer's moral universe, it's only wrong to shoot people in the head for questioning a game ruling because people are of the opinion that it's wrong.

[Actana]

The way I see it, a GM who "is never wrong" is a bad GM. Not directly because they hold that stance, but because holding that kind of stance screams a massive amount of pride and arrogance, both of which are very like to cause problems in themselves.

GMs are human, and humans make mistakes. Claiming otherwise is silly. A GM who refuses to even acknowledge they might be wrong won't learn from their mistakes, because they think they're constantly in the right. And thus any problems that come up between the players and the GM are like to repeat themselves over and over, because even though the GM might be absolutely wrong in some very simple case, they can't and won't admit it, because they are too arrogant to see that they are wrong.

Now, this might sound an extreme case, but a GM who can't admit they're wrong isn't, in my experience at least, a very rare occurrence. The thing is though, the players often outnumber the GM. The GM might not even know the rules the best, especially when it comes to the players. The players probably know the characters they've created inside out, and most likely a lot better than the GM does. Thus the players know what they're characters can and should be able to do, because they've spent the time creating them for such situations. A GM creating an additional rule on the fly and enforcing it with "I'm the GM so I'm correct" spits in the face of the PCs, who had no idea about the "rule" that was just created (and most likely caused by some severe misunderstanding about the rules). This in also why all houserules should be documented beforehand, but that's going on a tangent.

My point here is that the people around the table are equal. The GM may run the game, but he's only one of many players playing. And if he's wrong, he needs to be told he's wrong. There's often a better time and place for arguing rules than during game, but a GM who sets their beliefs in stone and refuses to budge is like to cause many other problems on the way, including but not limited to an apparent disrespect for the opinions of the players. a GM might be a dictator, but despite Machiavelli, being feared as a GM isn't the best course. Mostly because a GM likely doesn't have a standing army to back them up.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Bull. But this is getting far away from the board's purpose. So, we'll just leave it as you are objectively, unequivocally, universally, colossally wrong, and leave it at that.

Insisting? How so? By pointing out the rule a whopping TWO times? This isn't the case of someone harping on the same rule over and over and over and over and disrupting a game. This is simply referring to the same thing twice. Dear Pelor, how can a gaming group get past the orc battle if someone dares take 10 seconds to reiterate a rule! That's ten seconds that I will never get back that I was spending watching him move his mini anyway. Multitasking? What's that?

This will be the last time I respond to your posts, because frankly, your moral system is utterly and completely alien to me, and there is nothing to be gained from further discussion that won't result in account warnings.
The statement was that you cannot judge how someone enforces their rulings. Are you saying that it is wrong to murder players to enforce a ruling? Are you saying such enforcement can be judged as right or wrong?

By all means, read Gnomish Wanderer's reply. He calls it a strawman, but then goes back to calling it "wrong" with scare quotes. Yes, that is his position. In Gnomish Wanderer's moral universe, it's only wrong to shoot people in the head for questioning a game ruling because people are of the opinion that it's wrong.
Firstly, 'she'. The boards do have a gender indicator for politeness reasons.

Secondly, it is, in fact, a strawman because it is presenting my argument as weaker than what it really is through phrasing. I'm not saying opinions do not hold power. Most people, myself included, look very negatively on murder. Up to the point that they call it 'wrong'. I don't believe such a word holds meaning beyond that of 'negative opinion' because nothing is truly wrong. That's not saying that the opinions are powerless because people often act on opinions, such as arresting murderers. Just that, by itself, the act has no universal wrongness to it beyond what we humans attribute to it.

Thirdly, in regards to reiterating the same ruling twice, Vorr does make a point to describe the second interaction as 'well on page xx' which implies that instead of just the second time the rule is being pointed out, this is the second time an argument is forming around the basis of the rule after a discussion to resolve said rule (no matter the length of the discussion) had been resolved. Bringing up an argument again unnecessarily which he said he wouldn't stand for. Not unreasonable by my standing.

And I'm just saying the enforcement of the ruling, no matter how severe (from murder to simply asking them to leave) is not universally or objectively right or wrong because nothing is objective. Let's say I was living under the delusion that every other living being was a figment of my imagination. Does it make it wrong for me to kill constructs of my own mind? Is it really murder? Subjectively, for me, no. Subjectively, for you, yes. can you say objectively? Is objectivity based on the amount of people who subjectively say it's wrong? If EVERYONE was living under the same delusion would that suddenly make murder objectively right? The point of objectivity is that it cannot be changed, though, so who would murder be objectively wrong to?

And on another smaller point, none of us save Vorr himself have all the details to what actually happened.

[Deophaun]

Your post confirmed absolutely everything that I gleaned about your position from previous posts. I'm out.

Firstly, 'she'. The boards do have a gender indicator for politeness reasons.
Opinion! :smallbiggrin:

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Opinion! :smallbiggrin:
One, much like the social constraints regarding murder, that I expect to be respected, ma'am.

[Newoblivion]

In my group we are quite experienced players. So if we don't have the book and we are not sure how something works I as a DM will make up the rule but I will ask the players if they think it's fair and I will be open to suggestions.

I had times when I killed a character because of a mistake I made. In that case I will ask the player if he wishes to return with the current character or if he wants to play a new one. If he returns with the dead character I will just explain that he got stabilized and he wakes up coughing blood or some such.

[BCOVertigo]

In my group I put a timer on rules lawyering. It's important to have consistency, but consistency is only there to increase fun. If the consistency becomes the focus, then screw it, I will rule something appropriate and move on. Do I make mistakes when DMing? Of course! However I refuse to let them get in the way of the fun, and whatever method of mitigation is most appropriate for getting back on track for that situation will be the one I use.

As an aside, all of these people who are drawing lines in the sand between 'old school antagonistic' and 'new school coop storytelling' style of play are making themselves worse DMs.

I had some PCs sit down in front of a bard the other day who told them a story, complete with alternate characters that they played as, that ended in the characters deaths. I got to hunt them down and let them survive for as long as their wits allowed. I used that as a method for introducing a side quest bbeg that I might bring in later. It was antagonistic as hell and they loved it.

Don't make the mistake of saying another style is wrong, because regardless of whatever beliefs you have about absolute morality, you are a worse DM for pigeonholing yourself and removing tools from your arsenal.

Talk about missing the forest by running into a tree...

[Deophaun]

Don't make the mistake of saying another style is wrong, because regardless of whatever beliefs you have about absolute morality, you are a worse DM for pigeonholing yourself and removing tools from your arsenal.
Forgive me if this is my ego talking, but I get the sense this is, at least in part, directed towards me. If I may ask, what tools have I removed from my arsenal? Aside from a gun, that is. I'll cop to not using that to help DM a game.

[Ghen]

I am sick of the petty arguments in this particular thread. Please cease and desist, get along and get along, and whatever. All offended parties talk about their grievances privately please.

Now, as a 3.5 PLAYER and not as a DM, I know that it really sucked when my Knight died due to a DM's mistake. In fact, the mistakes he made also killed another player's Duskblade as well.The way he handled it was by having me and the other player roll up new characters . The way I would have preferred him handling it would have been to admit that he screwed up, take a step back, and just look at the rules for a second.

I have seen it argued that telling the DM to stop and look at the rules before making a final decision is, essentially, too tedious to deal with and that the the gaming group is better served by the DM making a quick ruling and moving on with the game. I would argue that replacing half the party with fresh characters takes up significantly more time than just looking up a rule would, and that the suspension of disbelief would be better maintained by not killing half the party when it shouldn't have happened anyway.

Not saying that aforementioned DM is wright, wrong, or anything in between. I'm only saying that his style is not my style, and it's not how I like to roll. I also thought the opinion of a player instead of a DM would be helpful.

[Rogue Shadows]

Not saying that aforementioned DM is wright, wrong, or anything in between. I'm only saying that his style is not my style, and it's not how I like to roll. I also thought the opinion of a player instead of a DM would be helpful.

It is.

Like I pointed out; I, as a DM, keep the rulebooks nearby for a reason. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of them, especially the ones which I haven't read or rote memorized, which, given that there's something upwards of 50 in main 3.5 D&D alone, never mind campaign setting-specific books or third party publishers, is quite a few. I'm only human, and more to the point, there's only one of me, verses generally four or five players, the combined mental acuity of each is always going to far outstrip my own prowess.

[Newoblivion]

But you would've made a new character anyway if your old character is dead. How creating a new character is a compensation for a DM mistake?

Anyway. The game is full of many many rules. We are bound to forget some of them. The DM should have the wits and experience to to run the game smoothly and improvise when its needed.

The thing is that this subject is huge. I rather know exactly what happend to the OP and comment on that rather then discuss the philosophy of DMing, because everyone have a different opinion on how should one follow the rules of the game while playing.

[killem2]

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"

Unfounded paranoid fantasies.

My players never act like that, we're adults, we are also human and we understand mistakes. They make mistakes and I don't punish them for it, just as if I miss something, we correct it and move on.

What a joke.

[Vorr]

"Hi, I am an OD&D / AD&D game master with profoundly different assumptions of what is going on. Etc.

See, Vorr... if you were entirely up-front about the sorts of games you run, and described the assumptions of this style of gameplay, and how it is different than modern games, when trying to find players (say at the post-it board of your FLGS) I bet you would quickly find that there is a reason this style of gameplay has pretty much died out. And I doubt you would find any players that stay with you for the long run.

Well, none of what you say is accurate. More like: This game is designed to be a fast paced roller coaster ride, utterly unlike almost any other game. Once we start, the action and adventure will be non stop. So be prepared to play. This game is set up to be a challenge for you the player, not the character. You will be expected to figure things out, solve puzzles, investigate mysteries and other wise play the game. There will be no ''I roll a check to figure it out''. This is a deadly game, your character can die anywhere at any time. So be careful. But it's also a game that rewards great risk, so leaping off a cliff to attack an foe below is a good idea. The rules in the books are just suggestions. Only what I say is a rule. Should you have a rule question, feel free to ask before the game starts. Should you randomly plan at 9:30 to take advantage of some typo, misprint, ill though of, badly worded, or broken sentence in some rule book to do something ''awesome''....you might want to ask the DM if that will work before 9:30."


Now my style of game play is what is called Old School. It's not like modern 3e or even more so 4e. Note that Old School is not adversarial, it's challenging. Should you kill a dragon Old School, you will have no doubt that the 'dragon' did everything possible to win.

Modern, New School, games can get very repetitive and boring. The modern game philosophy is just odd. We won't say any more about that...but if you like to try some thing different, then an old school game might be for you.

[Elycium]

Now, Vorr, what you say now, is more understanding. One of my DM (I have 2 in the same game), plays something like you´ve told in the last post.
If you had told that in the beginning, I believe that you would not have suffered all that bashing.

[TopCheese]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

Holy crap how do you put your pants on in the morning?

This is a problem in most areas of life.... It is ok to admit mistakes. It doesn't bring chaos but stops it. Chaos is having one person giving out rulings that someone else knows aren't right, but the DM says "so? I don't care what the rules say.. It goes as stands... Also you are kicked out for questioning me".

[Trebloc]

I never make mistakes.

And as a DM I never make mistakes.

As a DM I don't care what a rule book says. In fact, bringing that up more then once (''but on page 66 it says") is a good way for a player to be kicked out of the game.

The DM must always know what they are doing, even when they don't. It's the only way to keep the game moving. Otherwise you just descend into chaos...............

So your players have no idea how to actually play the game that they're attending? And the books they spent money on are basically worthless?

It sounds to me that you give yourself an out to make mistakes, and you absolutely refuse to let anyone disagree with you. Your way or the highway, literally.

[Da'Shain]

The rules in the books are just suggestions. Only what I say is a rule. Should you have a rule question, feel free to ask before the game starts. Should you randomly plan at 9:30 to take advantage of some typo, misprint, ill though of, badly worded, or broken sentence in some rule book to do something ''awesome''....you might want to ask the DM if that will work before 9:30."I'm fine with this as a DMing style academically (although frankly I would never play in a game where the DM abused "Rule 0" to any extent), but it does tend to screw over people who actually pay money for D&D books and go into a game expecting to play D&D. If you actually make this statement before the game starts, then by all means run your game this way, but this is not the default assumption by any means.


As for DM mistakes, my experience has generally been very congenial. The couple of times that I've DMed, one of my mistakes was pointed out and we simply replayed the round in question, and I caught another mistake a few minutes after it happened, told the players, and we all agreed too much (in-world) time had passed and simply said it wouldn't happen again. The DMs I've played with have done essentially the same thing; if it's caught quickly then we simply roll back and fix it, if it's caught way too late we simply make a note of it and follow the rule in the future.

No character has yet died due to DM mistake in one of the games I've played (that I know of anyway), because when a player's character dies pretty much all of them (myself included) look for any rules loophole they can find and pretty much review the round while the rest of the group goes on.

[Vorr]

Now, Vorr, what you say now, is more understanding. One of my DM (I have 2 in the same game), plays something like you´ve told in the last post.
If you had told that in the beginning, I believe that you would not have suffered all that bashing.

Well the OP question was about DM's mistakes, not ''what is your playstlye''. I can care less about the bashing.


Holy crap how do you put your pants on in the morning?

This is a problem in most areas of life.... It is ok to admit mistakes. It doesn't bring chaos but stops it. Chaos is having one person giving out rulings that someone else knows aren't right, but the DM says "so? I don't care what the rules say.. It goes as stands... Also you are kicked out for questioning me".

One leg at a time.

The point is the only ''right'' is what the DM says is ''right''. All them books of suggestions don't matter.

First off, a DM should never stop the game, or even pause it, just as they don't know what to do about something. In order to keep the game going, the DM needs to just Rule and Roll.

Second, there is no advantage to saying ''I don't know'' and derailing the game.

Third, to admit the mistake, will just disrupt everything. The chances that your players are perfect angles and will just say ''ok'' is slim. If even one player is upset, you can plant the seed that will ruin the game. The player can sit there, minute after minute and wonder ''is everything going right, or is the dumb DM messing up again.'' And in short, you can very quickly not be playing the game at all(''ok, lets stop the game and spend a half hour looking up the rule the DM does not know.")

[Lord_Gareth]

Third, to admit the mistake, will just disrupt everything. The chances that your players are perfect angles and will just say ''ok'' is slim. If even one player is upset, you can plant the seed that will ruin the game. The player can sit there, minute after minute and wonder ''is everything going right, or is the dumb DM messing up again.'' And in short, you can very quickly not be playing the game at all(''ok, lets stop the game and spend a half hour looking up the rule the DM does not know.")

Speaking as someone who has admitted to mistakes that then go to change the entire mechanical play dynamic when they're corrected ("Guys, it turns out we can't initiate maneuvers on AoOs. My bad,") I have to say that even in my most paranoid nightmares what you're describing has never happened. We call DMs who believe stuff like this "crappy DMs" and we leave their campaigns to go play with someone capable of maturity and respect.

[TopCheese]

The point is the only ''right'' is what the DM says is ''right''. All them books of suggestions don't matter.

First off, a DM should never stop the game, or even pause it, just as they don't know what to do about something. In order to keep the game going, the DM needs to just Rule and Roll.

Second, there is no advantage to saying ''I don't know'' and derailing the game.

Third, to admit the mistake, will just disrupt everything. The chances that your players are perfect angles and will just say ''ok'' is slim. If even one player is upset, you can plant the seed that will ruin the game. The player can sit there, minute after minute and wonder ''is everything going right, or is the dumb DM messing up again.'' And in short, you can very quickly not be playing the game at all(''ok, lets stop the game and spend a half hour looking up the rule the DM does not know.")

Those books of suggestions are RAW and cost $30+ a pop. What a big "screw you" to your players. But you seem like the kinda person who's tries to play checkers with chess peices (all knights and queens) when the other person uses checkers and when the other person say "that ain't right" you throw the board to the ground and say "those are my rules"

First off: Says who? Well damn I better never take bathroom breaks during my next 8 hr session.... Listen, the game won't break down if you pause the game and the ghost of D&D past, present, and future aren't going to come get you.

Second: Respect. People respect others who admit their mistakes. Never owning up to mistakes is a sign of a very immature person.

Third: It disrupts nothing, well perhaps your ego. And guess what? If you don't admit your mistake your same example is MORE likely to happen cause not only are you wrong (and they spent money for a book they don't need) you are threatening to kick them out if they speak up.

It would be like if you read the rules of this forum then got an infraction for doing something within the rules. You then show proof that you was within the rules and the mods were wrong and BLAMO you get banned from the site... Even though you was right all along. How would you feel? You most likely wouldn't speak up (if this was the only place to talk D&D... many people don't get a ton of options on games being played) or you would leave entirely and give up. (Not saying this has ever happened, but it is the best comparison I could give).

Hey if you want to play calvin ball then hell yeah but this is Dungeons and Dragons and there are rules written down. Deviation is expected and mistakes are made but that doesn't give anyone the right to reduce it to calvin ball or to bully the players that are trying to get a piece of something great.

[Lord_Gareth]

To get on-topic:

I may or may not be unusual in that, as a DM, I tend to notice my mistakes before my players do, if they notice them at all. Some are corrected on the spot ("Wait a minute, that's too many D6's,") if they're simple or easy to correct right then. For others I tend to wait for either the end of the session, or the beginning of the next session, when I can discuss things with my players in an OOC fashion without interrupting the game. Since I tend to make my house rules clear up front, there's not a whole lot of arguing about those; in cases of confusing RAW I'm usually the judge to begin with, even if I'm not the DM, so there's little trouble on that score.

A bad ruling of mine has yet to kill a PC (thankfully) but we do run into some cases of debate, which I've found great success in asking the player to bring it up during a break, or else before/after a session, so we can continue with the Having Fun part. Customer satisfaction is, thus far, pretty high ^_^

[Vorr]

Those books of suggestions are RAW and cost $30+ a pop. What a big "screw you" to your players.

Well, I do tell my players not to buy all them books.




It would be like if you read the rules of this forum then got an infraction for doing something within the rules. You then show proof that you was within the rules and the mods were wrong and BLAMO you get banned from the site... Even though you was right all along.

What a great example. In any organized social setting, the people that make the rules do not have to follow them and worse can change the rules, make up new ones and can interpret the rules any way they want too. And worse, the rule makers always make vague rules, so that they can do what they want! A rule might have the words ''you can't say anything against the community standards''. And what are the so called ''community standards''? Oh, well they are anything the rule makers and enforces want them to be!

[TopCheese]

Well, I do tell my players not to buy all them books.




What a great example. In any organized social setting, the people that make the rules do not have to follow them and worse can change the rules, make up new ones and can interpret the rules any way they want too. And worse, the rule makers always make vague rules, so that they can do what they want! A rule might have the words ''you can't say anything against the community standards''. And what are the so called ''community standards''? Oh, well they are anything the rule makers and enforces want them to be!

Well have fun in left field.

[RFLS]

What a great example. In any organized social setting, the people that make the rules do not have to follow them and worse can change the rules, make up new ones and can interpret the rules any way they want too. And worse, the rule makers always make vague rules, so that they can do what they want! A rule might have the words ''you can't say anything against the community standards''. And what are the so called ''community standards''? Oh, well they are anything the rule makers and enforces want them to be!

Remind me to never, ever vote you into a public office. This is a terrifying sentiment.

[Jane_Smith]

The only huge mistake a dm has ever made in a game I have personally been in, was when he allowed all of us to have our choice of a bonus feat, OR a free +1 cr template from pathfinder but it would cost us half our starting wealth.

This was mostly fine, as most of us picked the bonus feat or for example my character took a tiefling "template" for an abyssal sorceress, or the lizardfolk picked the winged template, remade for pathfinder. This was not a HUGE issue, until... our magus decided to take the lycanthrope template, stating it was CR +1, and picked dire tiger... with a spiked chain build. The dm was extremely busy that day due to real life issues and was relatively new to dming so the warning flags did not immediately pop up for him, but a few days later I asked for the party make up, he told me, but missed the part about what KIND of lycanthrope our magus was until the game was already started. Needless to say when he shifted into a 9 foot tall behemoth tiger warrior, bricks were shat. Everywhere, even the ceiling.

I did some research and informed them that the CR for the lycanthrope is equal to the base animal's, THEN +1... He was effectively playing a CR 8 character at level 1 with about 30 strength with a spiked chain and spellcasting. The dm, not use to lycanthropes, read all the benefits he got, but at the same time felt to guilty to just say "Lolnope remake character" after we had already started the game. Instead, he simply made him a normal tiger lycanthrope, and gave us all Toughness as a bonus feat so we could survive the slightly stronger monsters it would take to challenge our large, feline friend, but kept the game going. Though he handled it rather well, and often the were-magus ended up separated from us and often had to fight the larger enemies while we took on fodder, puzzles, etc. Everyone was happy until he started getting cocky/etc a few sessions later cause he thought we were being lazy even oocly, wondering why we made such "Weak" characters - we all simply replied with glares that would make satan pale, and he found himself killed shortly after by a very a angry mob of orc bezerkers; ironically all with spiked chains.

[jindra34]

Honestly Vorr, I would consider you a bad DM. Primarily because your attitude runs against having calm discussions of the rules, which on some level requires you to admit you might be wrong. Biggest thing of running a game is to remember its not YOUR /MY game, its OUR game.

[Vorr]

Honestly Vorr, I would consider you a bad DM. Primarily because your attitude runs against having calm discussions of the rules, which on some level requires you to admit you might be wrong. Biggest thing of running a game is to remember its not YOUR /MY game, its OUR game.

I'm all for having a calm discussion about the rules/suggestions of the game. Just not during the game.

I'm fine with the ''our game'' concept, but part of that concept for me is ''you must accept me as the Old School Tyrant Killer DM''. And if you don't want to that is fine, as mine is not the only game in town.


Well have fun in left field.

Well, we are all in the same field. What I say is true for everything.


Remind me to never, ever vote you into a public office. This is a terrifying sentiment.

Really want to scare yourself, just look into how 100% true it is. Grab your School Handbook, Employee Handbook or read the Terms and Conditions of any website. You won't have any problem finding the line that says ''we reserve the right to change the rules without notice.'' In other words, the rule makers can do whatever they want, but the rule followers must follow the rules. Or find the social behavior rules where it says something like ''unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated'' and ask yourself just what ''unsportsmanlike conduct'' and just who gets to decide what is and is not ''sports-like''.

[jindra34]

I'm all for having a calm discussion about the rules/suggestions of the game. Just not during the game.




Which means issues generally can't be discussed meaningfully, because players won't have your notes, won't know whats coming up, and therefore won't know what rulings your going to make that might f' them over until its already been made and finalized. At which point bring it up means saying you are wrong, which is something your against. Its an unworkable, theoretically sound concept.

[Vorr]

Which means issues generally can't be discussed meaningfully, because players won't have your notes, won't know whats coming up, and therefore won't know what rulings your going to make that might f' them over until its already been made and finalized. At which point bring it up means saying you are wrong, which is something your against. Its an unworkable, theoretically sound concept.

It's a good thing that I can be reached, anytime from nearly anywhere via the internet. So if a player has a question, they can e-mail me.

I say that if you have time to go through the books an look for every tiny detail to attempt to get an advantage, then you have a minute well before the game, to send a question e-mail. But to show up at 6pm Saturday night and stop everyone from gaming as you have questions is just wrong. And if your really the type of gamer that wants to ''one up'' everyone with your amazing understanding of the rules, you probably won't be playing in my game anyway.

Why would players want the DM's notes and what to know what was coming up in the game. Do you really play that way? ''Ok, everyone, in room ten there will be a hydra. It's hungry and will attack. So you guys walk into room one.." And notes ''When you enter the room you will see five Lord Evils. Four are illusions and the real one is the one in square 16 by the window.'' Does anyone play that way?

[Asteron]

The problem with "Rule 0" is that players never know the rules by which they are playing. If a DM has a houserule they want, be upfront about it. Don't change the rules in the middle of a game. Not only is it confusing, it does more to tear down the trust the players have in the DM than admitting a mistake will ever do.

Rules are not just guidlines. They are the whole (insert appropriate expletive here) contract by which the players and Dm agree to play. If this is never certain, then fairness just flies out the 80th floor window and lands broken on the sidewalk. There has to be objective rules to judge the game by.

Also, it's not just the DM's game. The game belongs to the players every bit as much as the DM. Without the players, there is no game and the DM is far more expendable. After all, someone else can be the DM...

Honestly, I have no problem with Vorr's approach to adjucating rules during a session. I said I use a similar style in the games I've DMed. I just have a problem with kicking a player out for questioning it... To me, it violates the players rights and is horribly unfair. If they get disrespectful, then by all means kick them out (disagreement is not disrespect!) All that disagreement warrants is a firm "the ruling is final. We can discuss it later..." and moving on. You've already stated that this is how you run so they should expect it, but they should not be booted out.

[Douglas]

Why would players want the DM's notes and what to know what was coming up in the game. Do you really play that way? ''Ok, everyone, in room ten there will be a hydra. It's hungry and will attack. So you guys walk into room one.." And notes ''When you enter the room you will see five Lord Evils. Four are illusions and the real one is the one in square 16 by the window.'' Does anyone play that way?
Of course not, but there are only two opportunities to question a ruling before it's over and done, and those are a) before it becomes relevant, and b) on the spot when it becomes relevant. You have stated that using option b will get a player thrown out of your group. That leaves option a, but the only way to know that a ruling would become relevant early enough to do that would be to have the DM's notes.

No access to DM notes (entirely reasonable) plus no discussing a ruling on the spot (not so reasonable) = no discussing a ruling in time for it to matter at all.

[Asteron]

Also, I should say that trying to sneak an idea by a DM is not a good thing. If a player is looking at a particular powerful combination of rules, it should be brought up beforehand. That IS asking for a quick banhammer during the session and a talking to afterwards.

Afterall, a player violating the DM's trust is just as bad a the opposite...

[jindra34]

Why would players want the DM's notes and what to know what was coming up in the game. Do you really play that way? ''Ok, everyone, in room ten there will be a hydra. It's hungry and will attack. So you guys walk into room one.." And notes ''When you enter the room you will see five Lord Evils. Four are illusions and the real one is the one in square 16 by the window.'' Does anyone play that way?

No, and thats part of the point. The other part is that rules govern interactions. And without knowing what they are going to be encountering, they can't know what interactions they should be making sure they understand with you.

Meaning a before game rules discussion session won't cover issues that might crop up during that session. Which means that I might have to justify that my advocated action is worth potentially going back through a major chunk of a session. All so that you can maintain a hectic pace that the players might not want. Having a better understanding of the 'pulse' of the group can allow you to have those discussions without hurting the pacing. Or address issues before the game.

EDIT: And douglass says the essence of it better.

[Vorr]

The problem with "Rule 0" is that players never know the rules by which they are playing. If a DM has a houserule they want, be upfront about it. Don't change the rules in the middle of a game. Not only is it confusing, it does more to tear down the trust the players have in the DM than admitting a mistake will ever do.

I see no problem with ''the players don't know the rules.'' It's safe to say most of the players don't know 'all' the rules anyway. So does it matter if there is one more rule not to know?

I hate the ''house rule up front idea''. It makes no sense to me and I'll never understand why DMs do it.



Rules are not just guidlines. They are the whole (insert appropriate expletive here) contract by which the players and Dm agree to play. If this is never certain, then fairness just flies out the 80th floor window and lands broken on the sidewalk. There has to be objective rules to judge the game by.

I disagree. The so called rules are just guidelines. My contract would say more like ''you agree to play this game, based on the suggestions found in the books, but as interpreted by me." So like objective suggestions.



I just have a problem with kicking a player out for questioning it... To me, it violates the players rights and is horribly unfair.

Why? I'm Infamous for my style of gaming around here. Some people, my players, love it. Some people hate it. So it's not like a player does not know what they are getting into(most of the time).

What are the players rights? It's my house and I'm the DM of the game. I have every right to ask you to leave(It's my private property!). It's not like you have to let someone play just as they want too. Like some sort of D&D discrimination law? ''A DM must allow any and all players to play regardless of race, magical or mythical type, hit dice or color of dice''.

[jindra34]

Vorr: House Rules Upfront is so that experienced players and DMs can get on the same page and iron things out before hand, and not interrupt play by changes to player assumptions and/or have to restart the game do to half the party walking out grumpy over your decisions.

And on the whole house issue? Not every game will be played at a player's house. And in fact a good chunk of experienced gamers I know, and not just ones I play with, would argue its better for the game overall if no one in the game owned the site that it was being played at. For that exact reason.

[TopCheese]

I see no problem with ''the players don't know the rules.'' It's safe to say most of the players don't know 'all' the rules anyway. So does it matter if there is one more rule not to know?

I hate the ''house rule up front idea''. It makes no sense to me and I'll never understand why DMs do it.

I disagree. The so called rules are just guidelines. My contract would say more like ''you agree to play this game, based on the suggestions found in the books, but as interpreted by me." So like objective suggestions.


Err wow so.. So you don't let people know what rules they are playing by. Then kick them for saying you got something wrong. I... Wow.. I just can't stop laughing.





What are the players rights? It's my house and I'm the DM of the game. I have every right to ask you to leave(It's my private property!). It's not like you have to let someone play just as they want too. Like some sort of D&D discrimination law? ''A DM must allow any and all players to play regardless of race, magical or mythical type, hit dice or color of dice''.

WOW this explains a lot. Coupled with above really shows what a clustermess your real life games must be. I wonder how many people you have scared away from D&D.

Because someone says "hey you got that wrong" you have a temper tantrum and tell them to leave.

If I was another player I would get up and leave right along with that person. That is just sad.

I need to unsubscribe from this thread, I can't believe that people like that play D&D (I've had good experiences from DMs post college).

But thank you I am chuckling still

[Asteron]

I see no problem with ''the players don't know the rules.'' It's safe to say most of the players don't know 'all' the rules anyway. So does it matter if there is one more rule not to know?

I hate the ''house rule up front idea''. It makes no sense to me and I'll never understand why DMs do it.



I disagree. The so called rules are just guidelines. My contract would say more like ''you agree to play this game, based on the suggestions found in the books, but as interpreted by me." So like objective suggestions.


Also, it's not just the DM's game. The game belongs to the players every bit as much as the DM. Without the players, there is no game and the DM is far more expendable. After all, someone else can be the DM...




Why? I'm Infamous for my style of gaming around here. Some people, my players, love it. Some people hate it. So it's not like a player does not know what they are getting into(most of the time).

What are the players rights? It's my house and I'm the DM of the game. I have every right to ask you to leave(It's my private property!). It's not like you have to let someone play just as they want too. Like some sort of D&D discrimination law? ''A DM must allow any and all players to play regardless of race, magical or mythical type, hit dice or color of dice''.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this, but I will post a final reply anyway.

It is extremely unfair to have "hidden" rules that the players can't know until you whip them out. It's also stupid for the players to agree to this... but some people are masochistic like that.

The houserule upfront deal just means that everyone is on the same page. I've already stated that I prefer the rules to be laid out for everyone. Your way of doing things is just as stupid to me as my way is to you.

All in all, you sound like a jerk and I am just glad that we don't know each other in RL...

[Vorr]

Vorr: House Rules Upfront is so that experienced players and DMs can get on the same page and iron things out before hand, and not interrupt play by changes to player assumptions and/or have to restart the game do to half the party walking out grumpy over your decisions.

People walk out of my game more then they are thrown out(but many come back too).

I see the book suggestions as the bare bones, and I add the fluff and fun. But the players can't know about the add ons, as then that just makes them normal. They need to stay secret, until they come up.




And on the whole house issue? Not every game will be played at a player's house. And in fact a good chunk of experienced gamers I know, and not just ones I play with, would argue its better for the game overall if no one in the game owned the site that it was being played at. For that exact reason.

Well, where else can you play? And even if I was forced to play in a city park or something, I could still refuse to run a game for a player I did not agree with(''sorry find another DM for your trisault Tome of Blood character'')


Of course not, but there are only two opportunities to question a ruling before it's over and done, and those are a) before it becomes relevant, and b) on the spot when it becomes relevant.

Well, first don't over look A). Should you have a character that might do something that might lead to a question you would do well to ask before the game starts. Even more so if your something might possible rely on interpretation or ''well it does not say X, but..." sort of things.

And you need to add C) You say nothing during the game, but are free to ask anytime after the end of the game.

And don't forget D) You are free to use your character's abilities within the game to attempt to figure anything out.

[andromax]

I hate the ''house rule up front idea''. It makes no sense to me and I'll never understand why DMs do it.


So you're the kind of DM that arbitrarily decides whether players win or lose a battle, because you a) Lie about monster's abilities b) Make up rules as you go along c) Tell players to leave if they point out they think it's unfair d) Somehow manage to get people to come to your house e) Convince yourself that people enjoy playing with you.

[Morbis Meh]

I see no problem with ''the players don't know the rules.'' It's safe to say most of the players don't know 'all' the rules anyway. So does it matter if there is one more rule not to know?

I hate the ''house rule up front idea''. It makes no sense to me and I'll never understand why DMs do it.


Because some players like to have trust that their DM is playing a fair game instead of wasteing their time and going on a power trip. Honestly I think you're better off playing a videogame like halo since you aren't really focusing on the roleplay aspect of the game

I disagree. The so called rules are just guidelines. My contract would say more like ''you agree to play this game, based on the suggestions found in the books, but as interpreted by me." So like objective suggestions.

If that's the way your player want to play the game then good for you, half the battle in playing a game like this is finding a group of like minded people to play it; however, as most people on this board and almost everyone I have encountered like to have a more solid, laid out set of rules so that they can understand the game instead of being constantly confused then frustrated because the person running the game is going on a powertrip. These types of people will obviously not show up to your game thus making both parties happy.

Why? I'm Infamous for my style of gaming around here. Some people, my players, love it. Some people hate it. So it's not like a player does not know what they are getting into(most of the time).

Congrats on your more than likely bad rep around gaming circle, you can call them babies and say life is unfair deal with it but your point of view isn't any more or less valid than theirs. This is a social activity meant to be shared by friends and if you treat your friends like garbage by not respecting them then your more than likely going to run out of friends.

What are the players rights? It's my house and I'm the DM of the game. I have every right to ask you to leave(It's my private property!). It's not like you have to let someone play just as they want too. Like some sort of D&D discrimination law? ''A DM must allow any and all players to play regardless of race, magical or mythical type, hit dice or color of dice''.

Very true but you are wasting someone's time and resources which is parallel to stealing. If you live far out of the way of one of the players they have to spend funds getting there, they have to spend funds on game resources, etc people don't want to feel robbed of their time hence why explaining all the rules before hand help with clarity and stimulates proper communication between people. Your style kills communication with a massive acts which is usually a very unhealthy way to have any type of relationship.

Responses in bold. To conclude, Vorr, you are not playing wrong and if you found a group that enjoys your game and you enjoy running said games then your doing just fine; however, you are very unlikely to win over this crowd of people with your arguement and this discussion will lead into a flame war. I wish you the best of luck with your games but for the record I would under no circumstances play in your games or associate with someone who feels the constant need to be right. In my opinion they're just exhausting to be around.

Back on topic, I am generally more of a buddy DM and my friends like having the ability to do fun, creative feats of awesome. So I do believe in the rule of cool and rule 0 but if I make a mistake then I will freely admit to it and deal with its implications at a more appropriate time. If a player has a question pertaining to an even that recently transpired they are able to ask freely as long as it doesn't completely detract from the game. The players in my group are all friends and we tend to get side tracked by random banter. Many would dislike this game for it does indeed ruin immersion but we all love to laugh and have a great time doing it.

[Vorr]

So you're the kind of DM that arbitrarily decides whether players win or lose a battle, because you a) Lie about monster's abilities b) Make up rules as you go along c) Tell players to leave if they point out they think it's unfair d) Somehow manage to get people to come to your house e) Convince yourself that people enjoy playing with you.

A)I would never lie. (kinda no point) B)Yes, plus have pages of unknown secret rules. C) Eh, they can say it's unfair. I admit to being an unfair DM before the game even starts. D)Like I said, some people do like my type of playstlye. E)I know people enjoy playing with me. I'm really far too extreme for the casual gamer who ''just wants to play'' to game with. If people did not enjoy my game, then why would they come back? Why do people even ask me to ''run one of your games for us'' if they don't like my style. Just did that last one for another group. They wanted to know why ''dragons were so tough in my game'', so I did an adventure for them: A simple save the princess from the dragon one. The dragon slaughtered them all and they had great fun, though they failed the adventure. And guess what, they want to tweak their characters and try again (even after I warned that I would change the adventure so it would not be the same).

[Elycium]

Man, if we keep like this I will need to go and make more popcorn

[Friv]

Vorr, I think the key issue here might be that, if someone is putting together a thread for DM mistakes, it's pretty bad form to walk into it and tell everyone that they're Doing It Wrong (TM). When you do that, you shouldn't be surprised when they respond badly.

If you don't have any DM mistakes, what you actually have is no story for this thread.


Back on-topic:

I once goofed up badly in the middle of an Exalted fight; we were running on a rather massive set of errata that had dramatically altered the way that people deal and receive damage, and without really thinking about it I had given the bad guy a power that hadn't been included in the errata updates, and as a result essentially made him invulnerable to everything my players could throw at him. After a few rounds of him trouncing them, and as I gradually grew increasingly terrified of the end result, I threw a patch of quicksand into the battlefield for them to spot and lead him into, and then they ran the hell away while he was stuck.

[Asteron]

I am more of a 1/2E gamer then a 3E gamer. And as an Old School Gamer, I think the DM has the final say, not the rules. The rules are just guidelines. And this stops the cheating optimizer types right in their tracks. They can say ''oh book x says this and book y says this and I interpret it this way so this happens'', but as DM I can just say ''nope, that does not happen. Rocks fall on your character, please leave my house.''

And my advise to other DMs is to not make mistakes. Even if you do, just roll with it. And if you feel you must justify and explain your actions in the Players Court, then simply lie. So if spell x should have worked on monster y, but you had it fail, just retcon it ''oh, monster y was also undead''.

Once a DM admits to a mistake, some players will just think of the DM as Dumb, permanently. Things like ''oh, well looks like a 15 hits this round, assuming our dumb stupid DM knows the rules today. I'll roll twice for my damage in case the dumb stupid DM messes up the hit points, again"


A)I would never lie.

Is it just me or do these statements seem to contradict each other?

[TopCheese]

Is it just me or do these statements seem to contradict each other?

Friend send me back here just because I had to see this.

Am I allowed to sig your entire post? Along with what Vorr said? That is just fantastic.

[Asteron]

Friend send me back here just because I had to see this.

Am I allowed to sig your entire post? Along with what Vorr said? That is just fantastic.

Anything I say is sig-able... both good and bad.

[hymer]

@ Asteron: He's advising others to lie, but saying he'd never lie himself.

Edit: After all, he's saying that if you make a mistake, you should do this and that. He's also saying he never makes mistakes (or at least, he's classifying his mistakes as not mistakes after all, since once he made the mistake, it became the rule - once the DM does something, it is by definition rules legal).

[Asteron]

@ Asteron: He's advising others to lie, but saying he'd never lie himself.

Edit: After all, he's saying that if you make a mistake, you should do this and that. He's also saying he never makes mistakes (or at least, he's classifying his mistakes as not mistakes after all, since once he made the mistake, it became the rule - once the DM does something, it is by definition rules legal).

I doubt both is assertion that he never makes mistakes and that he has never had to rely on his advice. He makes mistakes, but is too arrogant to admit it and covers that up with "it ruins the game to admit I'm wrong..."

[CoffeeIncluded]

Here's yet another problem with this that nobody's even mentioned: He's probably thrown away so many great plot hooks by doing this.

For example, a few months ago in a game I'm in, we were spying on a half-orc sorcerer who was just staring at a pit in a cave. Our beguiler cast Detect Thoughts to try to get more info on the scenario, but the half-orc made his saving throw exactly...until I took a look at the beguiler's character sheet and noticed that he had Surprise Casting, which meant that the half-orc actually missed his saving throw by one.

The DM and the player both thanked me for pointing that out, and so retconned it as the beguiler taking a moment to get through. What did he pick up? A mental layout of the caves? A relationship chart?

He heard the half-orc mentally communicating with an extremely intelligent creature in Undercommon. Bam, instant interest and our first strong hint at a puppetmaster that my character was convinced existed in some form and was pulling the strings. And if the DM hadn't allowed for the correction then we would have missed it!

[Shining Wrath]

I got killed by DM fiat a few session back. And then resurrected the same way.

DM didn't want the lieutenant BEBG to be defeated ... and I defeated him anyway. With non-lethal damage, because LBEBG was the father of one of the other PC's and we were trying to take him alive.

So, I deliver a thunderous blow, the DM says "He falls unconscious ... no, wait, he gets up and dives through this trap door back here".

We pursued, but the party got split. And then the LBEBG, backed up by the Mind Flayer, killed ME. With extremely lethal damage.

Since I was killed by someone that I had already defeated, I got resurrected by someone we'd just happened to rescue earlier in the day.

Point: if your decisions as DM kill characters in a way that is non-fun and arguably unfair, you need to find a way to "correct" the situation - and there are as many ways to do that as there are situations.

Refusing to admit that anything you do as DM can possibly be non-fun or non-fair means that people will go play with someone who is fun and fair.

[hymer]

@ Asteron: I may question the premises too, but I haven't found fault with his logic construction in what you've brought up.

[Athedia]

Here's yet another problem with this that nobody's even mentioned: He's probably thrown away so many great plot hooks by doing this.

For example, a few months ago in a game I'm in, we were spying on a half-orc sorcerer who was just staring at a pit in a cave. Our beguiler cast Detect Thoughts to try to get more info on the scenario, but the half-orc made his saving throw exactly...until I took a look at the beguiler's character sheet and noticed that he had Surprise Casting, which meant that the half-orc actually missed his saving throw by one.

The DM and the player both thanked me for pointing that out, and so retconned it as the beguiler taking a moment to get through. What did he pick up? A mental layout of the caves? A relationship chart?

He heard the half-orc mentally communicating with an extremely intelligent creature in Undercommon. Bam, instant interest and our first strong hint at a puppetmaster that my character was convinced existed in some form and was pulling the strings. And if the DM hadn't allowed for the correction then we would have missed it!

Only reason that worked is because we are playing a pseudosandbox. Wouldn't work in most games.

[huttj509]

As long as everyone's playing the same game, roll with it and enjoy. That game might be "DM rolls over as the PCs conquer the world," it might be "you'll know the rules when they screw you...maybe," it might be "peasants are OP compared to the players," or it might be "the gods are your playthings...at level 1."

If you mislead someone as to what sort of game you're running, it's probably not a groovy thing to do. Accidentally (such as thinking things such as playstyle were obvious, when they're not)? It happens. Deliberately? Remember the Wheaton Code.

[Asteron]

@ Asteron: I may question the premises too, but I haven't found fault with his logic construction in what you've brought up.

Just because he retcons it, doesn't mean it isn't a lie.

To go with his example, saying monster y is undead when it originally wasn't is a lie, no matter how "rules legal" the lie is.

[Clericzilla]

As long as everyone's playing the same game, roll with it and enjoy. That game might be "DM rolls over as the PCs conquer the world," it might be "you'll know the rules when they screw you...maybe," it might be "peasants are OP compared to the players," or it might be "the gods are your playthings...at level 1."

If you mislead someone as to what sort of game you're running, it's probably not a groovy thing to do. Accidentally (such as thinking things such as playstyle were obvious, when they're not)? It happens. Deliberately? Remember the Wheaton Code.

What's the Wheaton Code?

Also people of the playground, thank you for this. Seriously.

I never knew such a horrid DM could exist until I read Vorr's replies. I now have some stuff to add to my list of pre-game DM questions.

[TuggyNE]

And don't forget D) You are free to use your character's abilities within the game to attempt to figure anything out.

Except for, say, Knowledge checks. :smallsigh: Nope, those don't work!

[Gavinfoxx]

And Take 10! I bet you don't even know what the Take 10 rules actually allow, do you?

[Vorr]

Vorr, I think the key issue here might be that, if someone is putting together a thread for DM mistakes, it's pretty bad form to walk into it and tell everyone that they're Doing It Wrong (TM). When you do that, you shouldn't be surprised when they respond badly.

I simply gave my opinion and told what I did in my games. I can't help everyone's reactions.


Is it just me or do these statements seem to contradict each other?

It's just you. I don't feel I need to justify and explain my actions in the Players Court. I was talking about other people that might feel that way, not me.


I never knew such a horrid DM could exist until I read Vorr's replies. I now have some stuff to add to my list of pre-game DM questions.

Thanks for the complement. Say...I'm in Ohio too...Muuhahahahaaaaa

[White_Drake]

:smalleek: Clericzilla, if you value your life, run.

[Vorr]

Except for, say, Knowledge checks. :smallsigh: Nope, those don't work!

Well, one of my houserules (one of the ones the players get before the game starts) is my huge Knowledge check nerf. In my game knowledge checks only give you rumors, hearsay and speculation but not absolutely true facts. And roughly half of anything gained by a knowledge check is incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain false. I see knowledge checks as more ''a smart character wrote some stuff in a book'' more then ''all books in the world were written by by God.''

As I said in my statement: You are here to play the game as a player, not sit here and roll for your character to play a game. I really don't understand that type of game play.

[chainlink]

Sure I make mistakes. It happens. Usually not lethal heheh but if it happens we figure it out. Luckily I have a rule that benefits the entire table.

Everyone DM's. Everyone. At least once a year you got to pull something out even if it's a one shot. Teaches respect and understanding between the group, increases overall system mastery and kills any power tripping that may occur (I don't as primary DM but it works well for less mature groups).

Everyone makes mistakes and luckily my group is cool with that. We've never had any campaign breaking ones though. Just a few mysteriously not dead PC's... whom later died but not due to error :smallbiggrin: thems the dice!

@ Vorr. Stop saying old school. Your way of play isn't old school. It is something all right but not old school. As an "old school" DM I say this because it stains the term with your brand of play.

[Vorr]

@ Vorr. Stop saying old school. Your way of play isn't old school. It is something all right but not old school. As an "old school" DM I say this because it stains the term with your brand of play.

I just go to Bayside High while you are over at James Buchanan High. There are lots of schools.

Any why would you call unfair, killer, unknown gaming not 'old school' anyway?

[White_Drake]

Well, one of my houserules (one of the ones the players get before the game starts) is my huge Knowledge check nerf. In my game knowledge checks only give you rumors, hearsay and speculation but not absolutely true facts. And roughly half of anything gained by a knowledge check is incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain false. I see knowledge checks as more ''a smart character wrote some stuff in a book'' more then ''all books in the world were written by by God.''

As I said in my statement: You are here to play the game as a player, not sit here and roll for your character to play a game. I really don't understand that type of game play.

I'm curious, do you rule other things in a similar manner (i.e. "Your spell fails. Well you can't expect everything your character learned from his studies to be accurate, after all it's not like God wrote his spellbook." or "Your attack misses. Yes, I know you rolled higher than the monster's AC, but you can't expect your fighter training to improve your odds of hitting with all of your attacks, after all, he didn't learn from God.")?

[Vorr]

I'm curious, do you rule other things in a similar manner (i.e. "Your spell fails. Well you can't expect everything your character learned from his studies to be accurate, after all it's not like God wrote his spellbook." or "Your attack misses. Yes, I know you rolled higher than the monster's AC, but you can't expect your fighter training to improve your odds of hitting with all of your attacks, after all, he didn't learn from God.")?

Um no?

1)It's possible for a spell to fail for any of a number of reasons and it does happen quite often. I play a high magic game. It's not like a player should automatically expect their spells to automatically work all the time.

2)Well, in my game I never tell DC/AC's, so the player would only know if they hit after I said ''you hit''. I don't allow the math cheaters in my games.

[White_Drake]

First off, you consider calculating a monster's AC based off of in character knowledge cheating. I can see how it might be metagamey for an eight intelligence barabarian, but would you hold say, an eighteen intelligence wizard to the same standard?

Secondly, my point was that players spend resources to become good at things. Arbitrarily saying that they're not, despite the rules saying otherwise isn't exactly fair. Although I suppose that if you informed players of this rule prior to the game they would just not bother investing in knowledge skills. Still, I imagine that it hurts verisimilitude when the mighty wizard doesn't know squat about X simple magical thing, or the druid doesn't know anything about trees.

[Vorr]

First off, you consider calculating a monster's AC based off of in character knowledge cheating.

Math cheating is where you play the numbers. When you know the AC is 20, you make sure you have enough buffs to equal +10 or so you know you only need to roll a 10 to hit. In short you will use ''just enough math to automatically succeed.'' A skill check is a much better example.



Secondly, my point was that players spend resources to become good at things. Arbitrarily saying that they're not, despite the rules saying otherwise isn't exactly fair. Although I suppose that if you informed players of this rule prior to the game they would just not bother investing in knowledge skills. Still, I imagine that it hurts verisimilitude when the mighty wizard doesn't know squat about X simple magical thing, or the druid doesn't know anything about trees.

I'm all about the players becoming good at things. I want the players to know things and play the game. And you don't do that by a lazy dice roll and ''oh DM tell me stuff''.

And a wizard can know plenty about 'simple' magic things and a druid can know about trees. But neither character gets to know absolutely everything as a hard core fact about the topic. I do magic items Old School ''the ring has several tiny shields with tiny holy symbols made into it..ah, must be a ring of protection''.

[Amphetryon]

It's just you. I don't feel I need to justify and explain my actions in the Players Court. I was talking about other people that might feel that way, not me.No, it's not just him. Both things can't simultaneously be true at the same time. Believing otherwise looks a lot like a mistake from here, which you've previously said you never make (no exceptions were given, so I presume you must mean you have done everything perfectly upon first effort: Never less than 100% on any test at school, never needed a second attempt to learn anything, never hit the Backspace button. . . .)

[chainlink]

I just go to Bayside High while you are over at James Buchanan High. There are lots of schools.

Any why would you call unfair, killer, unknown gaming not 'old school' anyway?

Unfair, killer, unknown gaming is very old school. Very early 2nd. That is not what you do however.

Unfair, killer, unknown gaming with a heaping side of control issues, lying and hostility is what you do. Very different. Each to their own.

[Namfuak]

And a wizard can know plenty about 'simple' magic things and a druid can know about trees. But neither character gets to know absolutely everything as a hard core fact about the topic. I do magic items Old School ''the ring has several tiny shields with tiny holy symbols made into it..ah, must be a ring of protection''.

Isn't that basically how it works anyway? 10+HD on a check gets you "The thing is x," and every 5(?) you exceed that by gets you a special ability. Saying "You have heard of this thing, it is a Mind Flayer. Texts are unclear and contradictory, but all mention that it eats brains," is hardly having omniscient knowledge.

As others have mentioned though, this is probably a subject for another thread. I know that with my group we tend to try to avoid getting to in-depth with rules (unless it prevents character death), with the only exception being if we know there is a rule for it but do not quite remember it, or if the DM says something someone else knows is wrong and can prove is wrong relatively quickly.

[White_Drake]

I'm all about the players becoming good at things. I want the players to know things and play the game. And you don't do that by a lazy dice roll and ''oh DM tell me stuff''

How do you handle social interaction skills such as Bluff and Diplomacy?

[Vorr]

Unfair, killer, unknown gaming with a heaping side of control issues, lying and hostility is what you do. Very different. Each to their own.

What 'control' issues? I'm a very controlling person, but there is no issue here. I don't lie during a game as DM. Whatever I say as DM is The Truth, so it's impossible for me to lie(remember the ruler makes the rules). And where do you get ''hostility''? My game is very challenging, but how do you get 'hostile' out of that?


Isn't that basically how it works anyway? 10+HD on a check gets you "The thing is x," and every 5(?) you exceed that by gets you a special ability. Saying "You have heard of this thing, it is a Mind Flayer. Texts are unclear and contradictory, but all mention that it eats brains," is hardly having omniscient knowledge.

Sadly that is not how it works in the rules. By the book you'd learn the creatures type, subtype, special abilities, vulnerabilities and such. And it's not ''you have heard fire might work against them'' it's more ''they have fire vulnerability''.


How do you handle social interaction skills such as Bluff and Diplomacy?

The player generally has to role play this out. This is one of my spelled out before the game House Rules. I can't stand the ''oh I talk to the guy and such and roll a dice and everything goes my way'' type of playing. The whole idea of role-playing is you have to ''really'' talk your way out of things.

I use the Giants/Monte cooks Diplomacy anyway, not the boring core version.

And the more ranks a character has, the more help they will get from the DM. So I might suggest or hint a course of action. And to use a social skill, the player must put some effort into it. To at least describe what they want to do and how they would do it. For example I don't allow ''I bluff my way past the guards..roll'', the player would need to come up with a reason ''I tell the guards I'm hallway washer and hold up the mop from the other room''. Then we'd roll to see it that 'works'.

[Harugami]

You guys need to stop fighting, when you dm you tell a story and it doesn't really matter if you follow the rules or not they are their as a guide not as law. If he wants to bend and break the rules that's his right as its his story to tell. I'm not saying anyone is right in any situation, I'm just saying you have different styles and you all need to accept that he is allowed to do that as long as people want to play his game, and it's not like his "hardcore" dming is hurting you so just stop already.

[TopCheese]

What 'control' issues? I'm a very controlling person, but there is no issue here. I don't lie during a game as DM. Whatever I say as DM is The Truth, so it's impossible for me to lie(remember the ruler makes the rules). And where do you get ''hostility''? My game is very challenging, but how do you get 'hostile' out of that?



And the plot thickens! Dun dun duuuun!

I see what you did there! And no you are mistaken, just cause you take the mantle of "DM" doesn't mean you aren't able to lie. You are warping reality and I feel bad for the people that don't have any other DM so they have to play under your rules.

And no I don't believe any of your claims of being liked as a DM. If anyone one else would say they liked it I would just assume you have a phantom profile.



(Man this thread is a drug)

[Jane_Smith]

I am about to call in a moderator tactical strike on this thread at this rate; you guys need to chill and calm the hell down, vorr and all the people for or against him. Hell, even ill admit he sounds like a complete bag of bullcrap and would never play with him if he was the last dm on the planet, but dragging this fight out is derailing the thread and turning into a monkey crap throwing contest. Cease and desist peeps. If you dislike him so much, ignore him completely.

[andromax]

when you dm you tell a story

Except that D&D is collaborative story telling. So a one sided story isn't fun for anyone except the story teller. And challenges aren't challenging if they're decided upon at the whim of a Mad Man (don't let that flatter you Vorr). If you can't rely on at the very least RAI(or predetermined house rules) to carry your character through a challenging campaign then you're not even playing D&D.

[Elycium]

I am about to call in a moderator tactical strike on this thread at this rate; you guys need to chill and calm the hell down, vorr and all the people for or against him. Hell, even ill admit he sounds like a complete bag of bullcrap and would never play with him if he was the last dm on the planet, but dragging this fight out is derailing the thread and turning into a monkey crap throwing contest. Cease and desist peeps. If you dislike him so much, ignore him completely.


But...but...it was getting interesting :(

[Jane_Smith]

/cracks whip. :smallannoyed: Don't make me get the squirt bottle.

[Alaris]

I'm gonna echo Harugami and Jane_Smith... chill out people. Yelling at Vorr (or Vorr yelling back) isn't accomplishing what this thread really set out to do. If you guys want to continue to argue, I think everyone in this thread would appreciate if you took it to PMs, rather than clutter the thread.

Please and Thank You :D.

[NOTE: As far as I'm concerned, people can DM as they wish. If people continue to come back to their game, then the person is clearly doing something right. You guys are ENTIRELY allowed to judge him, but honestly, most of you are coming of as jackasses in regards to it. So I recommend you cool off. Or not. Entirely up to you. But I wanted to get my thoughts out.]

[Elycium]

/cracks whip. :smallannoyed: Don't make me get the squirt bottle.

Ok ma´am, I haven’t say anything :smalleek:

[Averis Vol]

Me and my group don't argue about rules during the session. They have, like, one chance to convince me I'm wrong, and if they don't it'll have to wait until I nerd out and look it up later. If it's something big (Like character death) I will say sorry and ask them to roll up a replacement character until they raise their old one or choose to just run with this one. Now, I'm not going to crush under my players gaze; I will tell them to stop bitching, play a few games of league of legends together, then me and the offended party can grab a drink and talk about their character. Being a lenient DM we can discuss something for his/her character (only if their death was my fault; they have to reap the seeds they sow if they die like miserable scrubs to a normal encounter :P).

Thankfully I haven't killed a PC yet (they have died though), but I always bring the offer of "Play a game of chance with the reaper", which basically entails either:
A) outwitting him.
b) outfighting him.
Or
C) playing a game of pure luck (Dice) with the odds terribly tipped in his favor.

if you win, you come back to life, no level loss, nothing; and you get a single grab out of his robe pocket (I roll a D% to find a book to pull from then roll again for an item at random.)

If you lose......well, reaper keeps a string of his eternal slaves on his key ring.

[Rogue Shadows]

The player generally has to role play this out.

I'm actually going to take issue with this specific thing.

See, I'm a pretty weak and clumsy guy, but if I wanted to play a Conan-esque hero, D&D gives me rules on how to do so, and I don't think you'd penalize my Conan being good with a sword simply because I'm not.

In a similar vein, a player might not be very good with words or interaction in real life. Indeed, my particular D&D group includes someone who, thanks to a brain injury from about ten years ago, has a slight speech impediment and sometimes needs a few moments to mull things over or catch up with what's been said or done (not very often, but often enough for it to be inhibiting in social situations). But if he wants to role up a CHA 18 Diplomancer Extraordinaire (and he does, as it turns out, quite often), D&D gives him rules on how to do so, and they have nothing to do with whether or not he himself is such a character.

The Diplomacy skill and the various DCs it provides exist for that reason. No one expects me to actually grab a sword and start looking for an actual goblin skull to cleave. The same should apply to Diplomacy, or indeed any aspect of D&D.

[Garwain]

I made a mistake because I lost track of ingame time. Players enter dungeon at dusk, and a sessions later, they emerge back out. Ingame time? Maybe a couple of hours. I tell them they are ambushed and dazzled for a round by the bright sunlight. (ok, it's not in the rules, I know, but it isn't farfetched either). And then ofcourse: "eh, isn't it supposed to be night by now?"

[Garwain]

I'm actually going to take issue with this specific thing.

See, I'm a pretty weak and clumsy guy, but if I wanted to play a Conan-esque hero, D&D gives me rules on how to do so, and I don't think you'd penalize my Conan being good with a sword simply because I'm not.
...
The Diplomacy skill and the various DCs it provides exist for that reason. No one expects me to actually grab a sword and start looking for an actual goblin skull to cleave. The same should apply to Diplomacy, or indeed any aspect of D&D.
I see what you mean, I used to think the same way. However, even for your unlucky friend, it should be possible to describe the action you want to do.

For your Conan it could: "with a mighty swing I aim at the nearest kobold, trying to cleave him in two". You don't have to actually perform this swing, but you can't say: "I attack with cleave".

The diplomancer can say: "I tell the guard that I dated his mother and she argeed to let me in". You don't have to tell in details how exactly you're convincing the guard or whatever eloquent words are used. In the same way you can't say: "I bluff the guard to let me in".

It's still a role playing game after all. So yes, a little imagination is need to deliver a colorful description rather than listing some game mechanics. What actually happens in the D&D world, well, none of us are capable enough for anything besides a commoner.

[ArcturusV]

Yes. Description. Yes. Please. I cringe every time I DM and I have a player saying something like "I roll Diplomacy."

... then again, sometimes you should beware what you ask for? I had one campaign I was in where one guy wanted to play his character as some wish fulfillment lothario (We ALL know that guy I imagine)... where almost any scene would go like this:

Guy: Ooo, female NPC. What's her Charisma?

DM: *looking up* Umm... 13.

Guy: Nah... won't bother... ooo, what about her Charisma?

DM: That's a 15.

Guy: I roll Diplomacy to seduce her.

DM: *Cringe, sigh* Okay, roll it.

One time I actually asked him to do SOMETHING other than just say "I roll Diplomacy to seduce her", I got some horrible, Sanity reducing line that I can't even remember entirely because it was that bad. I think it was something like him using as a pick up line, "Lets have sex in the name of love" or the like.

[TuggyNE]

I see what you mean, I used to think the same way. However, even for your unlucky friend, it should be possible to describe the action you want to do.

For your Conan it could: "with a mighty swing I aim at the nearest kobold, trying to cleave him in two". You don't have to actually perform this swing, but you can't say: "I attack with cleave".

The diplomancer can say: "I tell the guard that I dated his mother and she argeed to let me in". You don't have to tell in details how exactly you're convincing the guard or whatever eloquent words are used. In the same way you can't say: "I bluff the guard to let me in".

It's still a role playing game after all. So yes, a little imagination is need to deliver a colorful description rather than listing some game mechanics. What actually happens in the D&D world, well, none of us are capable enough for anything besides a commoner.

Fair enough. However, the deciding factor should be the roll, generally; the description is there only to tell the DM what precisely you're rolling for and what sort of DC to assign. (Certain diplomatic or battle strategies can pay off more easily than others.)

Ideally, of course, Diplomacy and other social skills would be a bit more fleshed out, so that even an awkward player would have a better idea of the sort of information they need to provide.

[hymer]

@ ArcturusV: So you tell the guy he's succesful and let the other players get on with the actual game? Buy him a mag and send him to the bathroom with instructions to clean up after himself? He's removed his character from the game anyway, after all.

[kardar233]

I see what you mean, I used to think the same way. However, even for your unlucky friend, it should be possible to describe the action you want to do.

For your Conan it could: "with a mighty swing I aim at the nearest kobold, trying to cleave him in two". You don't have to actually perform this swing, but you can't say: "I attack with cleave".

The diplomancer can say: "I tell the guard that I dated his mother and she argeed to let me in". You don't have to tell in details how exactly you're convincing the guard or whatever eloquent words are used. In the same way you can't say: "I bluff the guard to let me in".

It's still a role playing game after all. So yes, a little imagination is need to deliver a colorful description rather than listing some game mechanics. What actually happens in the D&D world, well, none of us are capable enough for anything besides a commoner.

I like to articulate it this way:

When you're role-playing, the really important thing is making character choices. Most "role-playing" is window-dressing for the really important thing: making choices that fit with your character. It doesn't really matter if you describe how your character swings his or her sword, or how they convinces the guard to let them off scot-free; what matters is that you're making a choice, hopefully based on the personality and values of your character, that they swing their sword at the opponent rather than shooting them with their bow, or talking the guard down rather than knocking them unconscious.

The numbers on your character sheet and the dice you roll are a tool to determine your character's proficiency and success at the task you choose for them. Once you've made the decision to pursue a course of action, it's up to your character (and their representative modifiers) to succeed or fail. No further input than the choice is strictly required; while experienced roleplayers will often want to talk through the whole conversation or describe how their character drops their enemy, it isn't necessary, just a preference.

[Jane_Smith]

I have a dm right now, while he is skilled and very fun to play with, he has the "Oh god diplomacy roll" phobia. He makes us talk everything out, etc; which is all fine and dandy, you can still persuade people with logical arguments, bribes or outright violence. Only problem is, my character is a diplomat sorceress specialized entirely for evocation/enchantment and the diplomacy skill and has 24 charisma and the ability to ignore penalties when making bluff checks. So I have 3 feats an many skill points I have sunk into diplomacy/social skills that have only gotten to be used a SINGLE time in over like 9 sessions (though not from my lack of trying) to try to calm down a rebel from going kamikaze. Luckily it was a natural 20 so, that was kinda awesome - it was the best sit down and shut up moment ever. But to sum it up? I am getting tired of being out shined in moments of wisdom and charisma by the lizardfolk barbarian and the amnesia crippled lunatic illusionist in our party who do not even have ranks in those skills. I am glad hes giving them a chance to persuade others, etc, but what about me? I am specialized to sway the unswayable, i am getting the short end of the stick and that brings me to this problem to top it off;

He thinks several npc's should be unable to be persuaded. I am not talking like, forcing people to change alignments or make a madman sane or a king start a war for the lol's, but, stuff that should not be impossible and make sense; like asking a high priestess of a faction to step down from her position to return to her birthplace/kingdom to avoid a civil war that will wipe out most, if not all, of her people when she claims to be devoted to peace, even if you got 24 charisma and +12 to diplomacy. Wut is this. :smallfurious: I am just exhausted at feeling so inadequate with an area i specialized in and especially when I give sound arguments, think things threw, weigh the outcomes, etc. I try so hard to be a proper diplomat and i got the skillset to do it, and I have not even gotten a chance to haggle to reduce the cost of stuff, or pry information from a lonely necromancer. I feel like I should not have wasted so many feats or skill points if the people who can be persuaded can have it done without a single roll, and i am getting nothing in return for my investment and roleplaying my theme.

Sense hes using his own setting, I think hes afraid of letting player's tamper with the major political powers or epic heroes that be, etc. Which is fine, I can respect that. Its not like I want to make a character whose goal is to kill drizzt in forgotten realms or worse, screw him. But, at the same time, setting things completely in stone is also bad for your players you know? If they specialize to do something and show ambition and initiative to go above and beyond to change the world like trying to stop a civil war by going straight to the head honchos and giving a speech, offering tribute, or similar to be heard, you should let them reach up to grab the sun, even if it burns them or leads them to a jail cell, "IF" they can do it completely within the rules and roleplay the hell out of it. Well, that is my belief anyway.

[Shining Wrath]

My only problem is, I have a dm right now, while he is skilled and very fun to play with, he has the "Oh god diplomacy roll" phobia. He makes us talk everything out, etc; which is all fine and dandy, you can still persuade people with logical arguments, bribes or outright violence. Only problem is, my character is a diplomat sorceress specialized entirely for evocation/enchantment and the diplomacy skill and has 24 charisma and the ability to ignore penalties when making bluff checks. So I have 3 feats an many skill points I have sunk into diplomacy/social skills that have only gotten to be used a SINGLE time in over like 9 sessions (though not from my lack of trying) to try to calm down a rebel from going kamikaze. Luckily it was a natural 20 so, that was kinda awesome - it was the best sit down and shut up moment ever.

Worse yet, he thinks several npc's should be unable to be persuaded. I am not talking like, forcing people to change alignments or make a madman sane or a king start a war for the lol's, but, stuff that should not be impossible and make sense; like asking a high priestess of a faction to step down from her position to return to her birthplace/kingdom to avoid a civil war that will wipe out most, if not all, of her people when she claims to be devoted to peace, even if you got 24 charisma and +12 to diplomacy. Wut is this. :smallfurious:

Sense hes using his own setting, I think hes afraid of letting player's tamper with the major political powers or epic heroes that be, etc. Which is fine, I can respect that. Its not like I want to make a character whose goal is to kill drizzt in forgotten realms or worse, screw him. But, at the same time, setting things completely in stone is also bad for your players you know? If they specialize to do something and show ambition and initiative to go above and beyond to change the world, you should let them reach up to grab the sun, even if it burns them if they can do it completely within the rules and roleplay the hell out of it. Well, that is my belief anyway.

The whole point of skills is to be able to do AMAZING things. If I hit 25 on my Tumble check I can dive under the giant, avoiding his attack of opportunity. If I hit 35 on my jump check I can set a new world record in the long jump and the high jump at the same time. And if your sorceress hits 35 on her Diplomacy check she should be able to persuade people to do almost anything that is in character for them to do. EXCEPTION: if the story the DM is trying to tell would be totally screwed by your Diplomacy check working ... because Diplomacy can have effects on the story that a jump can't. :smallsmile:

[Elycium]

Worse yet, he thinks several npc's should be unable to be persuaded. I am not talking like, forcing people to change alignments or make a madman sane or a king start a war for the lol's, but, stuff that should not be impossible and make sense; like asking a high priestess of a faction to step down from her position to return to her birthplace/kingdom to avoid a civil war that will wipe out most, if not all, of her people when she claims to be devoted to peace, even if you got 24 charisma and +12 to diplomacy. Wut is this. :smallfurious:


Funny... Once I did that... but was a mistake, I swear :( is not like I said "My lord, the empress is cheating you whit the prince of the next country... What you order us to do?" Is not like I did have a natural 20 in my bluff check, my charisma was 30... or I was the trusted lieutenant of the Emperor or anything...

[Jane_Smith]

Well, here is something I asked him if I could do and he outright said nope.avi;

There is a war brewing between three factions, lunites, topaz knights, and the lightests. Essentially peaceful nomad werewolf indians, rabid xenophobic crusading paladins, and your average god fearing joe. The king of the nation is a lightest, and allows the topaz knights to be here to route out the lunites. The king is not a bad man, and has a valid reason for hating the lunites as nothing more then a cult of brainwashing scum;

The lunites are threw and threw good people who just want peace and harmony, etc. But, there god? Basically randomly selects the next "high priestesses" when the current one dies. They constantly reincarnate in a sense by his blessing. The problem is, the priestess the god randomly selected this time, was the KING'S DAUGHTER. Suddenly shes like hur dur, i have to go, and joins the lunites, he thinks she was kidnapped, and has a logical fear his daughter is being manipulated or being held against her will by magic/etc. Though shes actually fine with this role and leads the lunites and keeps them protected and often is the one who turns them into there werewolf forms by bestowing the blessing of there moon god to there most loyal followers.

So my idea is; this ENTIRE WAR can be solved if the high priestesses just retires. We should be able to perform a ritual, ask lunite clerics, or the priestess herself to ask there god to perform a trial or the like for his favor or make an offering to change his mind, and/or persuade her that keeping her mantle is REALLY bad for her people (the lightests will win this war easily, especially with the topaz supporting them) and have her step down and let a new priestess be reincarnated and just go back to her father and explain things. But no, shes gonna sit back forever and never listen to logic. Maybe it is mind control and the king has a right to wipe them all out eh? Oh well, I tried to stop a war with logic and even willing to do a quest for a god as a "HALF DEMON" to gain his favor. But if thats impossible, I am totally fine with a war, my mission from my order is done, I tried, enjoy the bloodshed. :P

[Agincourt]

Jane_Smith, you pretty much just summed up why Charisma is so often a dump stat. DMs insist on not letting it do what it is supposed to do. Of course, players are going to dump it. Maybe what you describe should be a more complicated diplomacy check--like figuring out a way over the course of a session or two for her to resign gracefully and without shame--but your DM basically just told you there is no point to ever care about Charisma, or put ranks in Diplomacy or Bluff.

[Elycium]

So my idea is; this ENTIRE WAR can be solved if the high priestesses just retires. We should be able to perform a ritual, ask lunite clerics, or the priestess herself to ask there god to perform a trial or the like for his favor or make an offering to change his mind, and/or persuade her that keeping her mantle is REALLY bad for her people (the lightests will win this war easily, especially with the topaz supporting them) and have her step down and let a new priestess be reincarnated and just go back to her father and explain things. But no, shes gonna sit back forever and never listen to logic. Maybe it is mind control and the king has a right to wipe them all out eh? Oh well, I tried to stop a war with logic and even willing to do a quest for a god as a "HALF DEMON" to gain his favor. But if thats impossible, I am totally fine with a war, my mission from my order is done, I tried, enjoy the bloodshed. :P

Oh my... I think that I fell in love.



Well, now, on a contribution to the post:

Once we were playing whit our DM, and we just stopped focusing an enemy that was pretty much dead (the enemy was called "The Impaler" it was a homebrew).
We were facing 10 Abyss ghouls and 2 Death-Bringers, it was a hard fight, but when we almost won...BANG, the enemy that was almost dead and no one took the time to finish him off, used a death move (it was created too) to activate when he was pretty close to die, and no one of us took the hint and we practically let him use it without problem... He just impaled everything, dark spears emerged from the splitting ground, killing enemies and allies alike... it wasn’t something pretty to see xD

And the DM said "ups... I didn’t tough that it would be THAT strong"
It was a carnage, no one survived, not even the one who impaled all of us xD
It was a pretty awkward moment, when the heroes die and the evil guys too

[ArcturusV]

That Jane Smith... is a really weird thing for the DM to do. I can understand to an extent not wanting an entire plot arc (like this upcoming nigh genocidal war as it sounds) being derailed by a single roll. Then again, how I'd probably have handled it is something like:

You approach the priestess, tell her that she should step down for good. You roll dip, get a decent result. She hems, haws. Mentions something about how she may think she can avoid bloodshed if given a good chance. Or how the next priest(ess) might not share her more pacifist views, etc. (This is, presuming, you don't flub it), so you get alternate quest hooks (Find a way to rig a replacement, figure out a way to get the Priestess and the Father to sit down and hash things out, etc), a new way to accomplish the storyline because of your Diplomacy Roll, rather than invalidating the storyline because of it.

Also I wouldn't let anyone, no matter how wise, intelligent, etc, be able to effectively replace your Diplomacy Skill by IC arguing. When push comes to shove and they are trying to get someone to do something they wouldn't normally, it'll be a roll. If they were good arguments? I might include that as "Aid Another" and give your Diplomacy Roll a bonus. But that's about it.

Way I see things like that? I didn't just let one roll invalidate an entire plot arc. It did give an alternate route though. Meaning the Diplomacy Focused character wasn't just Useless, the fact that they had the skill, and used it, gave them new options they wouldn't otherwise have.

And I think that's the problem with a lot of DMs and Social Skills, least in my experience. When I've just been a PC, I've noticed that DMs presume social skills operate in basically two modes:

A free Charm Person/Dominate/Suggestion without spell level, components, spell slots, etc, which basically turns an NPC into a puppet. Which is why they don't like it, because, hell.... would you like it if the Party Bard even at first level basically got unlimited uses of one of the more powerful first level spells?

A "Get out of Plot Free" card where with a single roll you can make anyone abandon any scheme or position. So the DM just spend 10 hours working up this expansive plot arc about the war between the Weres and the Humans, to have all his work invalidated by someone saying "I roll Diplomacy..." and throwing at 35.

Not to mention what Diplomacy does is so vaguely defined. I usually house rule away that "The guy likes you" stuff, go instead with something like "You can get something from someone (Often in the form of a trade), and successive successful uses which are good deals for both increase the odds of your current deal being accepted, if they were terrible deals for them, it will be much more difficult on later deals", since after all, if you have experience with someone cutting you fair deals and giving you what you want, you're more inclined to agree with them. And that secondary clause usually inspires people not to use more flagrant abuses of high results. You con someone, eventually they stop letting you con them.

[Jane_Smith]

I understand "dont let one roll win the entire plot", but at the same time, don't just say no, you can't have that roll cause I said so. I even offered him to let us work it off; hey, maybe if its not up to the priestess and up to the god himself, we diplomize her into being ok with switching, then have her contact the deity somehow. I would have gladly done a sub quest or paid a cost or tribute for a simple and bloodless fix to this situation. Coming from a fiendish sorceress, that's a miracle in and of itself. Ontop of that, our other team had managed to make contact with her sister, the other princess, and was trying to deal with the situation within the city itself. We could have easily set up talks between the two factions. But nah, railroad it.

Meh, like I said, I don't entirely care, not my characters home region, shes not even a "full" member of this organization and is only helping out as a favor to one of the other party members for a earlier deed he performed for her, if the fools don't wont to listen to reason let nature sort out the stupid and weak. Maybe the next generation will be willing to listen to sound advise. I just dislike how he pulled out the invisible barrier of "nope.avi cause i said so". It irks me to my core why he would do that so unprofessionally when hes done so well on every other aspect of the game you know?


Edit: Ok, i have a plan. I will no longer play with the influence skill/ranks, i will just specialize in enchantment's. There will be no more "discussions" and arguments, debates, or un-persaudable npcs. They will obey with a wiggle of my finger. Its the true fiendish sorceress theme, and ill be helping them in the long run. The dm can't say they won't change there mind when i use mindrape on them. :smallbiggrin:

[ArcturusV]

Oh, yes. I know. It's right up there with "Soup isn't eaten with a spoon" on the frustration factor.

[Namfuak]

Edit: Ok, i have a plan. I will no longer play with the influence skill/ranks, i will just specialize in enchantment's. There will be no more "discussions" and arguments, debates, or un-persaudable npcs. They will obey with a wiggle of my finger. Its the true fiendish sorceress theme, and ill be helping them in the long run. The dm can't say they won't change there mind when i use mindrape on them. :smallbiggrin:

And magic saves the day!

...again.

(If I were your DM, I might respond that convincing a person to give up a position of power in order to prevent war, when she is already gearing up to go to war, would be an epic check, which would be 50+)

[Elycium]

And magic saves the day!

...again.

(If I were your DM, I might respond that convincing a person to give up a position of power in order to prevent war, when she is already gearing up to go to war, would be an epic check, which would be 50+)

There is a limit of how many people you can give the same offer, and in that case she just need to find another person. And if you do use that tactic again and again, she can just tell them that there is just no way for you to give them all a place of power, and that you in fact, are just lying to put them at bay and avoid a revolution.

[kardar233]

Oh, yes. I know. It's right up there with "Soup isn't eaten with a spoon" on the frustration factor.

It's all in the WRIST! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zVEHqwLVvpI#t=89s)

[Threadnaught]

Pretty sure this one's their fault.

Oh yeah, I'm so glad that when I decided on the encounter, I fudged it. Otherwise, going by RAW, the Skeleton would've kept gong after the Druid until he died. Druid complained when the Skeleton stopped fighting after he retreated though, because of RAW.
To be fair, the orders for the Skeleton were "Kill all hostile intruders, chase away others." Those are rather simple to me, if they pull out a weapon and attack, they're hostile, if they run away, they've been chased away.
Still, the Druid almost died to a CR1 enemy and the Wizard couldn't do anything to stop it. :smallbiggrin:


I was in all honesty surprised to read that Vorr uses The Giant's Diplomacy fix and makes his players give a basic argument whenever they roll.
I started with this straight away and made sure both my players knew about it and almost immediately "that **** Bard" started complaining. I told him to shut up and asked him what Rule 0 is. :smallamused:

There's a ton of other things he (Vorr) does, or has admitted to doing that I just don't like. For example let me roll a Knowledge: Science check to see what Water's made of... Woo! A Natural 20 with a +6 modifier, well I read something that's clearly a rumour that says it's made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, but that can't be right the Water Purification Professional says. He tells me we breathe Oxygen, but if we try to breathe Water, we drown.
Also Vorr, it's okay to lie to your players, I try to do it as often as possible. Otherwise, there's no point for the Sense Motive Skill. Though that's more, lying in game, rather than lying about the game.

As for "the Bard, well he breaks Wheaton's Law, nearly every session in his behaviour toward me. The use of The Giant's Diplomacy has been very amusing, I demand a basic argument and a roll. Whenever "that **** Bard" rolled Diplomacy, he succeeded on all but one check (complained on every roll), then again he was a diplomacy specialist, this was expected. The real fun was when he got the Ranger to make the argument in his place to, and I quote "let him do something" yeah, after he'd just spoken to some frogs and slaughtered every single hostile encounter they faced.
Ranger's Player is less eloquent than the Bard and they're both still under the impression that they need to make their complete arguments before rolling. :smallamused:

I'm so grateful they haven't had to roll Diplomacy while they've been Wizard and Druid. :smallbiggrin:


Oh yeah, if anyone's curious about what may be my biggest mistake, Kelb Panthera was rather shocked by it, it's sigged right there. Though I retconned it and made them part of a Divine and Infernal contract, because it made sense and I hadn't really given a reason to them before. Oh and the Wizard's Spells... Which the Druid complained about, as usual. :smallamused: