Is correcting the DM innapropriate?

[Talakeal]

So the other night I was playing PF and we were having a pretty good session. In the climactic battle I am fighting the enemy leader 1 on 1. The DM uses the critical hit cards, which result in plenty of wackiness.

On my turn I crit him and draw a card which blinds him.
On his turn he crits me back and disarms me.

As the other players are taking their turns I look up what the blind and disarmed conditions do as it has been a couple of years since I have used those rules and I needed a refresher.

On my turn I declared I was going to pick up my weapon.

The DM responded that if I do that I will take an attack of opportunity.

I said that blind creatures can't take AoO.

He said "That's not a rule," to which I responded "Yes it is, I am literally looking at it the rule right now. (I still had the book on the Total Concealment page after looking up what blinded did) You are the DM, so its ok if you want to house rule it, but that's what the book says."

He shakes his head and refuses to look at my rulebook when I try and show him. He picks up his own book, flips through, and declares "I don't see the rule so I am not going to use it."

Every other player at the table opens their rule book, turns to the page I pointed out, finds the rule, and affirms that it is a rule.

The DM says it doesn't matter because he is not going to reward "rules lawyering" and takes the attack of opportunity normally.


He took his AoO, missed, and the fight continued on with our eventual victory, but this incident kind of tarnished on otherwise fun night of gaming. I felt hurt that the DM refused to believe me when I said I was looking right at the rule and that he called me a rules lawyer for doing so, and the DM obviously felt wronged (either embarrassed at being wrong or simply undermined at being challenged) about the incident as well.

So in the future, what is the etiquette for challenging the DM? Is speaking up "rules lawyering"? Should I just keep my mouth shut and roll with it to avoid conflict?

[Bad Wolf]

IMO, speaking up to the DM is fine. Its a game, not a dictatorship. You did nothing wrong.

[Urpriest]

I think you did everything pretty politely. You had the rule open in front of you, you specifically said if the DM was houseruling it that's fine, and you pointed it out concisely in a way that wouldn't slow down the game.

[Afgncaap5]

Different DMs respond differently to players finding a rule. I generally like to hedge it when I ask about it, something like "Is this an exception to the rule that X?" or something. Sounds to me like you handled it pretty well, though.

[Flickerdart]

Rules lawyering is when you try to convince the DM that RAW isn't stupid, not when you point out a rule he didn't know about. Normally I frown on people looking things up during the game since it bogs things down (if you seem to recall there's a rule, look it up after the game and talk to the DM) but since you already had it open, it didn't take any extra time.

[MrUberGr]

Personally I'd do it again, however it depends on how he plays on other occasions. If it was reversed, would he allow you to take an AoO? "Bloodlust" is normal for DMs but trying to make it harder by cheating is just silly imo.

[Barstro]

"Rules Lawyering" is using RAW to give overpowered or strange results. Quoting a single rule is called "playing fair".

It is correct to point out to a DM when he is incorrect. It is childish to ignore rules because you want something else.

[Nalak]

There are factors that generally going into the appropriateness of the act, such as how vehemence,frequency, and severity. If you were to constantly correct the guy then yeah it would because come off as continually undermining the DM. Too much vehemence in an argument and you like you're just taking it too far, though for my group the severity of the circumstances bringing up the correction. I mean its a lot more annoying if the you're saying "The rules say I get an additional +2 on the check" when you're rolling with a +25 on a check where the desired result is a 15. (Yes I've had that happen.) It's another thing if your character is going to lose your primary weapon because the DM forgot that magic items get a higher opposition to being sundered.

In the case of your story it doesn't sound like you did anything wrong. I mean heck you had the book open in front of you why did he need to check his book when he could have just asked you to show it to him. Plus the monster was blind how would it get that opportunity attack? It can't see that you're leaving some sort of opening to take advantage of; maybe if it was spell casting because then the DM could argue it hears you beginning to cast, but picking up your weapon would have left no reason for it to get the attack. He didn't really need to accuse you of rules lawyering because first everyone else verified it and second he could have just said it had blind-fighting and argued that allowed it take the opportunity. Heck say its just attacking wildly and flip a coin saying heads the attack comes at you anyway through luck tails the attack is nowhere near you. Easy ways to handle it without getting defensive.

[Afgncaap5]

Rules lawyering is when you try to convince the DM that RAW isn't stupid, not when you point out a rule he didn't know about.

I may need to steal this...

[atemu1234]

It should be ok to correct the DM. Basically, that's been stated.

[OldTrees1]

Like most social questions, the answer is it depends.

Specifically it depends on the DM and the correction in question.


Examples of DM variation:
As a DM, I fully welcome corrections. However, I do not play a RAW game. So I will hear the correction and then decide whether to follow it or not.

Some other DMs would get annoyed quickly at corrections. Perhaps by seeing it as the player backseat DMing or trying to override Rule 0.


Examples of correction variations:
The DM wants something to do something but incorrectly thinks the rules don't allow it. (Ex: You can in fact charge with minor obstacles in the way. It just requires jump and tumble checks.)

The DM gets an insignificant/negligible detail wrong. (The Blind AoO sounds like this)

"But RAW says this broken thing works"


In your case with your DM I would have mentioned the rule and then went along with the AoO. The DM may or may not ask about it/look it up later. This saves face for the DM and puts it squarely in their court. Now they can change their mind on the spot without much embarrassment since you are not pressuring them to do so.

[johnbragg]

Personally, I'd rule as GM "BBEG gets the attack of opportunity at -4. If there's a no attack of opportunity when blinded rule, tell me later. We're in combat."
Then after combat, I'd be shown the rule and use if from then on.

Further corrections would/may result in the appearance of that low-CR monster with the touch of fatigue attack. Or maybe small rocks fall, make reflex saves or take d6 damage.

[Aegis013]

The culture of this board is going to say it's ok. Partly because we're all pretty well versed in RAW, and generally like to know about any alteration before it happens/before it affects us, especially if it affects character building decisions. And I think that's pretty ideal.

However, it really depends on the DM as a person. I, as a DM, try to goad my players into providing constructive criticism after I run any session, but rarely can I get any (the most important one I've gotten is that not getting to effectively participate in the combat because Black Tentacles/other action impairing effect grappled you/prevented you from acting for 6 of the 7 rounds is not fun). On the other hand, as a player, I'm pretty vocal and straight-forward about areas I think could be improved. Of course, I always try to include what I think was done well. After all, my intention is help promote a better game, because I'm continuously seeking ways to run a better game, thus I encourage players to bring up if they think I'm not following RAW, but ask them to trust me if I tell them "this is an exception to the rule that your character doesn't know about, but it will be explained eventually." Which does come up from time to time.

In my experience, sadly, this approach tends to simply discourage others from DMing, resulting in the campaign ending prematurely.

It's important to know how your DM feels about being challenged in that way. If they view it as an undermining of authority, it might be best to reserve such questions/grievances until after the session, when it won't be in front of the other players. Though, if it might cause your DM to become discouraged and stop DMing, it might be best to just roll with the punches and try to have fun despite those particular issues.

[Sliver]

The DM following the established rules isn't rewarding players for "rules lawyering". Unless it's a house rule, it's the DM making a mistake. Sometimes RAW is stupid, sure, but that's not the case. The DM is human, so mistakes aren't beyond him. If he didn't know the rule off the top of his head, he should have told you that this is how it will happen now and you'll resolve it after the game, if you hadn't already had the rule in front of you.

Instead, he opened the book, pretended to look for the rule and that he couldn't find it, before continuing on while ignoring you and the players. Time has already been wasted on this and he chose to not be impartial, for whatever reason.

I know that such attitude would go quite a way towards souring my experience with that DM and ruining my trust in his abilities as a DM.

Have you tried talking to him about that?

[Inevitability]

If it takes a long time to look up a rule, I always prefer not safe that for later. In this case, however, the book was open on the right page already, and the other players didn't seem to mind.

As far as I'm concerned, you did the right thing.

[Coidzor]

So in the future, what is the etiquette for challenging the DM? Is speaking up "rules lawyering"? Should I just keep my mouth shut and roll with it to avoid conflict?

Depends on how you get along with this guy outside this situation and whether this was an isolated case of poor form on his part.

If this is indicative of his general attitude towards you both in and out of game, then don't play with people who hate you.

[Toilet Cobra]

"Yes it is, I am literally looking at it the rule right now."

If you'd replaced that sentence with: "Actually I thought something similar, but I just looked up the blind condition and the book says they're actually denied an attack of opportunity," would he have reacted the same way?

I mean, you shouldn't have to coddle your DM but sometimes, for some people, that's the case. He showed some pretty poor form all throughout, but hopefully this was an isolated incident due to climactic battle adrenaline. Calling you a rules lawyer was crossing a line, in my opinion.

[oxybe]

Is it inappropriate? No! Throw a 300+ page rulebook at me and expect me to memorize it all is silly. Expecting me to memorize two or more is asking me to throw that rulebook back at you. hard.

As a GM as long as you're not being disruptive when pointing out a mistake, I'm cool with it. But then again, the key thing to note is "... you're not being disruptive". I let people do pretty much anything as long as it meets that prerequisite and correcting me on how the game is expected to be played is hardly something I can fault people for. Lord knows how many rules I'm playing with that are just 8 years of play with the same group congealing and forming something from the aether.

As a player, I hope my GM is able to accept that he's only human and can make mistakes. We often have a few books at the table and both me and another player use our laptop/tablet for note-keeping and rule references, so we often have several tabs open to paizo's prd or the d20pfsrd so we can look up stuff on the fly if we aren't immediately sure how it works or interacts, looking stuff up on other people's turn whenever possible so as to not bother other players or the GM, so I can point out "hey I want to do this thing, this is how it works by default".

I'm also the guy who contacts his gm between sessions going "I would like to use this thing [forwards link to spell/feat/archetype], is it ok as is, do you want to house rule it or should I just pick something else."

My current GM has weighed in on several things I showed him, as well as how I planned on using it. And bless his heart he still keeps me around after all these years.

But I still rely on my "... you're not being disruptive" rule when I play. If what I'm thinking about looking up is going to take up too much time, then I decide on another course of action while looking it up later in the session or at home.

[Doctor Awkward]

On my turn I crit him and draw a card which blinds him.
On his turn he crits me back and disarms me.

That's pretty impressive, considering he was blind at the time.
Did he even roll his miss chance? Or is that not a thing in Pathfinder?


So in the future, what is the etiquette for challenging the DM? Is speaking up "rules lawyering"? Should I just keep my mouth shut and roll with it to avoid conflict?

"Rules lawyering" is whenever you have a situation where someone follows the exact letter of the rule while willfully misinterpreting or ignoring it's intent, generally to give themselves some kind of advantage.

My favorite example in 3.5 is bucklers. You can wear a buckler while wielding a weapon in that same hand without penalty, and no rule says you can't wear two, so strap a buckler to each arm. The shield AC doesn't stack, but you can load them both down with shield enchantments like heavy fortification or blurring or mirror image.

You weren't doing that, and you didn't slow down the game-- in fact, it sounded like you tried to keep things moving).
It's the DM's responsibility to know the rules of the game, and let players know before they even start if he is going to be changing anything. When a situation like this does come up in game where he is going to rule incorrectly, it's generally good form to follow the rule book and wait until after the session to say, "Okay from now on..."
The DM sounds like he doesn't just like being proven wrong.

Having said that, the proper table etiquette varies from one DM to the next. Some prefer to follow the rules and be corrected when they aren't using them properly, and I've played with some that refuse to even allow books to be opened during the game.
As far as this particular DM goes, unless you are absolutely sure it won't be an issue, it would seem the safest course would be to just keep your mouth shut until after the session, unless the situation is the life or death of a character.

[pwykersotz]

Been there. On both sides, actually.

You did nothing wrong, but as others have said, social situations are often anything other than "right" and "wrong". Given the reaction you received, I would probably attempt to phrase rules inquiries during combat as questions from now on.

"Does he get that AoO even while blinded? I have a rule here which says he usually doesn't."

The soft way of stating this gives the DM an easy way out on both sides. He doesn't feel that you're trying to push around the rules side of game, but he's free to rule without fear of looking like a jerk because you implicitly acknowledged that sometimes things bend the rules or creatures have abilities you don't know about.

Once that's done, you can talk to him after game when he's less likely to bristle. One on one conversations are a lot more productive than teaming up against the GM, in my experience. I had a player embarrass me with 5' step rules once, it played out in much the same way except that it ruined the game for me instead of the player because I let him go by the book and it trivialized my encounter that was supposed to be epic. Sometimes these fudges are to service drama, and strictly following the rules leads to a less awesome feel. And no one likes being called out.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I hope that helps. :smallsmile:

[Blackhawk748]

I've had this happen on both sides of the screen. A buddy of mine is an old 2e vet so he sometimes muddles up the rules (he remembers the 2e version instead of the 3.5 one) so i correct him from time to time as i started with 3.5 so i can generally remember the rules pretty well. Sometimes he ignores what i say, other times he says "ya go with that", wither way im ok with it as his games are pretty fun.

When im on the other side the above situation would have probably gone like this, "Really? *reads page* Well i guess he doesnt get an AoO. Moving on."

[endur]

No one can remember all the rules. Even if you are just using core rules, the PHB, the MM, and DMG are all large books.

While the referee should follow the rules, they do have the option of ignoring the rules, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I think there is nothing wrong with bringing up the point that blindness = no AOOs. If someone says they don't see it, just say where, page X, top of right column.

The GM can still have the NPC take an AOO. Maybe the GM stated the AOO was happening before he knew the rule and the GM does not want to change the stated action... or maybe the GM felt that the AOO is part of the story ... or maybe this NPC gets AOOs due to hearing or smell or being cool.

[aspekt]

No it's not wrong at all. Annoying at times, but never really wrong.

Keep in mind DMs have bad nights too.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If this is indicative of his general attitude towards you both in and out of game, then don't play with people who hate you.

I may be paraphrasing here, but "To is human, to be an ass about it is to be a Greco-Roman god."


More seriously, I readily welcome critique mid game so long as you can make your case or point it out in under a minute. This is a rule I adopted from a former GM of mine. It helped that he was the type to use PDFs and other things like Skype for secret messages. Those can obviously be a double-edged sword, depending on your group.

[Galen]

So in the future, what is the etiquette for challenging the DM? Is speaking up "rules lawyering"? Should I just keep my mouth shut and roll with it to avoid conflict?It depends a lot on context and tone, which are very difficult for us to surmise in a text-only retelling. Depending on those, you might have been completely reasonable, or you might have been a smug rules-lawyer.

But, I am going to say that for sure: if a player's idea of what constitutes "reasonable" is consistently very much different from the DM's idea of what constitutes "reasonable", perhaps that player and that DM should have a player/DM divorce.

[ericgrau]

It's quite simple.

Value of rules correction > value of delaying the game => correct the DM.
Value of rules correction < value of delaying the game => keep it to yourself.

You also need to consider whether or not you can bring it up after the game session is over so the group can start using the correct rule next time. If the value of fixing it only one time is less than the value of delaying the game, then keep it to yourself until after the game session is over.

Or for the less analytically minded: Don't be nit picky but do correct the DM if what he's doing is a huge problem. After the session if possible.

You're playing to have fun not to be correct.

For the specific question I don't think a 50:50 shot of taking a little bit of damage one time was worth it and you should have brushed it off without saying anything. I mean it's not like blind AoOs are going to be a repeated problem and if they were you should have handled it after the game not during. Maybe your DM was also a little impolite about it but oh well try to keep things moving and don't let it bug you so much.

[elonin]

I've been called a rules lawyer for bringing up situations like this. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lord Torath]

Refer him here (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm), emphasis Item #3. Okay, that probably wouldn't work; it'll probably just make him mad.

Seriously, I think this requires an away-from-table talk between you and the DM. I like that you pointed out the correct rule, accepted his ruling, and went on with the game. I think that's the way to resolve in-game rule disputes to keep the game moving.

Now you need to have that talk about being corrected on rules, and how he feels about it, and how he wants to handle in-game rules corrections.

[Grollub]

I would say if you can correct the DM in under 3 mins.. by all means. If it's gonna lead to a 45 min debate over some grey area.. do it after the game..

According the to situation as you described it... you were right, and the gm is a tool for not listening to you & the group who not only looked it up.. but provided it to the gm most handedly.

[Maglubiyet]

How many other times that night did you correct him -- maybe that was the straw that broke the catoblepas's back?

[jjcrpntr]

Like most social questions, the answer is it depends.

Specifically it depends on the DM and the correction in question.


Examples of DM variation:
As a DM, I fully welcome corrections. However, I do not play a RAW game. So I will hear the correction and then decide whether to follow it or not.

Some other DMs would get annoyed quickly at corrections. Perhaps by seeing it as the player backseat DMing or trying to override Rule 0.


Examples of correction variations:
The DM wants something to do something but incorrectly thinks the rules don't allow it. (Ex: You can in fact charge with minor obstacles in the way. It just requires jump and tumble checks.)

The DM gets an insignificant/negligible detail wrong. (The Blind AoO sounds like this)

"But RAW says this broken thing works"


In your case with your DM I would have mentioned the rule and then went along with the AoO. The DM may or may not ask about it/look it up later. This saves face for the DM and puts it squarely in their court. Now they can change their mind on the spot without much embarrassment since you are not pressuring them to do so.


I agree with this but I'd add it's also how you approach it to the DM.

I had a player that in one game did things both (in my opinion) the right and wrong ways.

Right way. I was new to DMing, this was my 3rd session as a dm. I had misread the tumbling rules (pathfinder) and told a player that when he failed his tumble his movement ended. The guy said "ok" then after his turn he looked it up and without fuss handed me the book at the page and said "i think you may have misread this". I did, no problem I apologized for it and we moved on. Right way.

Wrong way. Later that same session the party had completed their first mini mission and were stumped. So someone suggested praying to their gods to see if they can get guidance. The monk in the party said he'd go find a temple of desna and see if she could help (they were dealing with minions of Lamasthu so it also made sense). The aforementioned player lost his crap saying that no monk would EVER pray to Desna as she was a chaotic god. I made the argument that monks weren't tied to their gods alignment and with the players backstory it made sense. The guy continued to argue until I finally lost it on him.

This is the same guy who as a rogue stopped play and demanded to know what a spell was and how it worked before letting the wizard have a chance to spell craft it.

I always tell my players I don't know everything so if you think I have something wrong let me know. But it's all in how you address it.

[Invader]

I've been running into this a ton in my current campaign. The DM thinks he knows everything about 3.5 and both with rules and optimization and he's fairly poor with both (see: he told the monk he'll be practically ustoppable after 12th lvl). I find myself constantly correcting him about everything but it's gotten to the point to where I just try to keep my mouth shut because it really only affects me bc the other players don't know any better.

So far:
Large creature has reach because it's large
a great sword is a reach weapon that can also attack adjacent squares
If I 5ft step toward a creature that has reach, I provoke
All true dragon wrymlings are "at least medium or large"
Fireball has a radius of 30ft
Open/close unlocks doors
Druids wildshape isn't based in hit die
the Tarrasque is a nearly impossible challenge
You can't stack templates (half dragon+half dragon etc.)

So on and so on...

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I don't see this as you doing anything wrong. You DM, however, did something that hits my sore spots. instead of being open to reason, or just plain facts, he just went "nuh-uh" and slammed his foot down. that sort of behavior is what I call "douchebaggery."

Don't let yourself be pushed around by douchebaggery. This isn't abusing a poorly written rule for to achieve unintended results, it's base freaking mechanics simulating a mostly realistic functionality: if you can't see, it's damn hard to counter attack.

he seriously just did that to be stubborn. I make a point out of condemning that sort of behavior.

[Talakeal]

I don't want to turn this into another bashing on my DM thread, but if you look at some of my past it is a pretty frequent issue.

From what I can tell both from his behavior at the table and during conversations outside of the game he believes that he has memorized every rule in every edition game he has ever played. Thus if you bring up a rule he is unfamiliar with (or question him about a rule that exists only in his mind) he insists you are mistaken and refuses to even hear arguments to the contrary or look at the evidence (such as the books). If another player sees evidence and brings it up he either gets mad at us for rules lawyering or insists that the rule is a stupid one that nobody actually plays with.


That's pretty impressive, considering he was blind at the time.
Did he even roll his miss chance? Or is that not a thing in Pathfinder?


It is, but its only 50% so its just as likely he hits as misses.

[Pippa the Pixie]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game. The player simply does not have all the information to judge and rule on anything. So something might ''look'' wrong to the player, but it is not wrong at all. They simply don't know all the details. And it really slows the game down to a crawl if the DM has to point out every tiny detail just so the players can rule check the DM.

[Flickerdart]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game. The player simply does not have all the information to judge and rule on anything. So something might ''look'' wrong to the player, but it is not wrong at all. They simply don't know all the details. And it really slows the game down to a crawl if the DM has to point out every tiny detail just so the players can rule check the DM.
There's a substantial difference between "there is a secret special ability at work" and "nuh-huh, that's not a rule, I can't hear you." It costs no time to say "yes, normally he wouldn't get an AoO when blind, but this guy does and you don't know why" but it takes forever to get into an argument of DM vs rules supremacy, and in this case, the DM is the one that decides whether to escalate the issue or not.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game. The player simply does not have all the information to judge and rule on anything. So something might ''look'' wrong to the player, but it is not wrong at all. They simply don't know all the details. And it really slows the game down to a crawl if the DM has to point out every tiny detail just so the players can rule check the DM.
so the players in this situation should just feed themselves the DM's excuse and just come up with ways it does work?

I guess the OP could totally just tell himself every mob on that field has blindfight or other similar weatherproofing, but at that point the players then have to start seeing the patterns in the DM's habits, and next thing you know they don't even cast glitterdust because the DM is going to throw bypasses and immunities around willy nilly.

but that'd require the DM to be playing the game sitting in everybody's hand. which is just crazytalk.

[Doomeye56]

I don't want to turn this into another bashing on my DM thread, but if you look at some of my past it is a pretty frequent issue.

From what I can tell both from his behavior at the table and during conversations outside of the game he believes that he has memorized every rule in every edition game he has ever played. Thus if you bring up a rule he is unfamiliar with (or question him about a rule that exists only in his mind) he insists you are mistaken and refuses to even hear arguments to the contrary or look at the evidence (such as the books). If another player sees evidence and brings it up he either gets mad at us for rules lawyering or insists that the rule is a stupid one that nobody actually plays with.

It is, but its only 50% so its just as likely he hits as misses.

Good lord above I've had that DM and it is the worst.
Your not playing by any set rules but the ones in his head so there is no way for you to predict how any situation will go because you are playing the game that exists in his head.

[johnbragg]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game. The player simply does not have all the information to judge and rule on anything. So something might ''look'' wrong to the player, but it is not wrong at all. They simply don't know all the details. And it really slows the game down to a crawl if the DM has to point out every tiny detail just so the players can rule check the DM.

What happens after the game? Is correcting or questioning the DM after the game acceptable, or do Rocks Fall?

Because it really sounds like in OP's case, the DM was wrong by RAW. (I was about to type "the DM was wrong", but that is of course a logical impossibility. :) )

[Coidzor]

I don't want to turn this into another bashing on my DM thread, but if you look at some of my past it is a pretty frequent issue.

Maybe you shouldn't play with people who hate you then.


From what I can tell both from his behavior at the table and during conversations outside of the game he believes that he has memorized every rule in every edition game he has ever played.

So he's an arrogant fool who overestimates his abilities and doesn't much like you, eh?


Thus if you bring up a rule he is unfamiliar with (or question him about a rule that exists only in his mind) he insists you are mistaken and refuses to even hear arguments to the contrary or look at the evidence (such as the books).

So he's a rude, arrogant fool who overestimates his abilities and actively disrespects you.


If another player sees evidence and brings it up he either gets mad at us for rules lawyering or insists that the rule is a stupid one that nobody actually plays with.

So he's a rude, arrogant fool who overestimates his abilities, actively disrespects everyone at his table, and doesn't understand group dynamics.

And you all still play with him.

That's tragic.

Granted, with that amount of delusions of grandeur, I have to wonder if there's not something seriously wrong with him. Other than his priggishness, I mean.


It is, but its only 50% so its just as likely he hits as misses.

No. :smallconfused: No it isn't. That's not how probability works. Stacking a 50% chance of failure on top of a 40% chance of failure doesn't make him more accurate, it makes him less accurate. The chance of both hitting on the 60% chance to hit attack roll and passing the 50% miss chance is about 30%, and that's off the cuff and rusty as hell with probability math.

Granted, your DM doesn't understand rules or respect them. He probably also doesn't understand math or respect it, either, so few people do.


What happens after the game? Is correcting or questioning the DM after the game acceptable, or do Rocks Fall?

Because it really sounds like in OP's case, the DM was wrong by RAW. (I was about to type "the DM was wrong", but that is of course a logical impossibility. :) )

No, no, there are definitely cases where DMs are wrong. Especially in terms of things like this which are interpersonal reactions and not just adjudicating the rules of the game.

Also something like deciding to throw out half the rules and still claim to be following them is both wrong and worrisomely delusional.

[jaydubs]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game. The player simply does not have all the information to judge and rule on anything. So something might ''look'' wrong to the player, but it is not wrong at all. They simply don't know all the details. And it really slows the game down to a crawl if the DM has to point out every tiny detail just so the players can rule check the DM.


so the players in this situation should just feed themselves the DM's excuse and just come up with ways it does work?

I guess the OP could totally just tell himself every mob on that field has blindfight or other similar weatherproofing, but at that point the players then have to start seeing the patterns in the DM's habits, and next thing you know they don't even cast glitterdust because the DM is going to throw bypasses and immunities around willy nilly.

but that'd require the DM to be playing the game sitting in everybody's hand. which is just crazytalk.

I'd argue that Pippa's approach works fine if the DM has a sufficiently high system mastery. Though in my experience a lot of DMs overestimate their system knowledge, or underestimate the number of minor mistakes that slip through the cracks (it's like how many typos most people have despite knowing proper spelling and grammar).

Even when I personally DM, I still prefer my players to speak up when they think they see a mistake. In my experience, it doesn't actually eat up all that much time. Most comments fall quickly into:

1. Simple things I forgot or didn't realize. An AoO I didn't notice. A modifier I forgot to add. That kind of thing. Usually fast to arbitrate.
2. Something is going on they don't know about. In which case I tell them as much, or ask for a knowledge check.
3. Something complicated or obscure in terms of rules. In which case I just say it's not very clear, and that I'm just going to make a fast call on it for the sake of expedience. We can take a closer look at it after the game. If it's a do or die ruling, we all take a minute or two to look it up, as much for my benefit as theirs. I'd feel pretty bad killing a PC based on a faulty ruling on my part.

I also prefer fielding player concerns because I find it a very fast and efficient way for a DM to build up player trust. It's the same reason I prefer rolling my dice in the open. Sure, my players should trust me. But being open to oversight from my players, acknowledging mistakes when they crop up, etc. affirms on a session-by-session basis that I'm really doing my best to arbitrate fairly. And that there's no secret desire on my part to screw them over. :smallsmile:

[Pippa the Pixie]

There's a substantial difference between "there is a secret special ability at work" and "nuh-huh, that's not a rule, I can't hear you."

Well, it takes just as long to say ''no comment, the game continues''.

The problem is too many players are playing the game just to point out the DM's mistakes. It can get very annoying. When a player makes a big deal about everything and ''what the rules say''.


so the players in this situation should just feed themselves the DM's excuse and just come up with ways it does work?

Not sure what you mean here.


I guess the OP could totally just tell himself every mob on that field has blindfight or other similar weatherproofing, but at that point the players then have to start seeing the patterns in the DM's habits, and next thing you know they don't even cast glitterdust because the DM is going to throw bypasses and immunities around willy nilly.

Good example. Here you have a player doing the whole King Thing: ''I say that the DM can not do anything against my spell glitterdust and that all npc foes must be effected by it at all times...except once in a while, like every six games. Then it's ok to have one foe who can't be effected. But otherwise the DM must never use any npc foe that is not 100% effected by my spell''.

Now, I think that is just silly.


What happens after the game? Is correcting or questioning the DM after the game acceptable, or do Rocks Fall?

Sure they can ask after the game. I don't often tell, but I've give them a hint so they can try and look it up.

I'm not sure about Pathfinder, but 3.5E D&D has the line of you can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment. So if the foe has scent or tremorsense they are not blinded/get total concealment and can make an AoO. At least in 3.5E D&D.

[Doomeye56]

As a DM I welcome correction, hell I welcome arguments as long as they have some facts to back them.
I take this approach because when i'm a player I take the time to memorize the rules as best as possible and when my learning is shot down by DM fiat it feels like crap to have my efforts go to waste.


Good example. Here you have a player doing the whole King Thing: ''I say that the DM can not do anything against my spell glitterdust and that all npc foes must be effected by it at all times...except once in a while, like every six games. Then it's ok to have one foe who can't be effected. But otherwise the DM must never use any npc foe that is not 100% effected by my spell''.

Now, I think that is just silly.

This right here annoys the piss out of me. This is the DM demanding we play 'their' game not play 'our' game.

[Urpriest]

The problem is too many players are playing the game just to point out the DM's mistakes.

Umm...no? Precisely zero players are playing the game just to point out the DM's mistakes. I know it may feel that way at times, but seriously, it's absurdly implausible that anyone is playing with you just to get their jollies out of correcting you.

[Coidzor]

Well, it takes just as long to say ''no comment, the game continues''.

And yet, one is inherently more respectful and harmonious than the other. So why go with being brusque when it doesn't take any more effort not to be?


The problem is too many players are playing the game just to point out the DM's mistakes. It can get very annoying. When a player makes a big deal about everything and ''what the rules say''.

If you're running into this, there's two possibilities I see. Either you're playing with people who hate you and are in a situation mirroring Talakeal's where you need to stop playing with people who personally dislike you...

Or there's something you're doing that draws such people or causes people to want to take that tack with you.

Well, ok, I suppose it could also be that you're viewing things from a lens where even innocuous things have a malicious intent ascribed to them. :smallconfused:

Suffice to say, what you describe as a problem is by no means ubiquitous and very much an idiosyncrasy or quirk of your area and/or your group and/or your DMing.


Not sure what you mean here.

It means you've gotta work with your players rather than stonewall them and then expect them to build up their own explanation for the plothole or rules snafu in their head. :smalltongue:


Good example. Here you have a player doing the whole King Thing: ''I say that the DM can not do anything against my spell glitterdust and that all npc foes must be effected by it at all times...except once in a while, like every six games. Then it's ok to have one foe who can't be effected. But otherwise the DM must never use any npc foe that is not 100% effected by my spell''.

Now, I think that is just silly.

It is silly, but not for the reason you think it is. Mostly because you just completely misread that statement as an example of a player being autocratic and declaring things about the game as if they had DMing authority when actually it's about how the DM has been deliberately screwing with them to the point where they no longer feel they have agency as a player.

[jaydubs]

Sure they can ask after the game. I don't often tell, but I've give them a hint so they can try and look it up.

I'm not sure about Pathfinder, but 3.5E D&D has the line of you can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment. So if the foe has scent or tremorsense they are not blinded/get total concealment and can make an AoO. At least in 3.5E D&D.

Interestingly, this is definitely an example of "rule is too complicated to be arbitrated in-game, we need to move on." But it's also likely an example of a DM being incorrect in a ruling and not realizing it, though I'm basing that on another giantitp thread.

See this thread discussing why scent and tremorsense don't negate concealment despite pinpointing the location of a creature. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?150077-Scent-vs-Invisible-creature

And the most relevant post on the matter: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=8357154&postcount=15

In any case, I'm not eager to rehash the argument.

[Douglas]

Good example. Here you have a player doing the whole King Thing: ''I say that the DM can not do anything against my spell glitterdust and that all npc foes must be effected by it at all times...except once in a while, like every six games. Then it's ok to have one foe who can't be effected. But otherwise the DM must never use any npc foe that is not 100% effected by my spell''.

Now, I think that is just silly.
That is not at all what I interpret him as saying. He's asking that npc foes that are unaffected should be unaffected for an appropriate in game reason. Having an in game reason for it makes it at least theoretically possible to predict, account for, bypass, or otherwise interact meaningfully with that reason, creating an additional game element. That is a very different thing from a GM fiat negation of a player's ability, whether deliberate or accidental, which is just a full stop "your ability doesn't work the way you had every reason to expect it to."

[Talakeal]

No. :smallconfused: No it isn't. That's not how probability works. Stacking a 50% chance of failure on top of a 40% chance of failure doesn't make him more accurate, it makes him less accurate. The chance of both hitting on the 60% chance to hit attack roll and passing the 50% miss chance is about 30%, and that's off the cuff and rusty as hell with probability math.


No, the chance of getting a critical hit at all is not 50%, but the chance of getting a critical hit against a target with total concealment is exactly half as likely as getting a critical hit against an opponent without concealment.

He doesn't play with confirmation rolls and the enemy was getting multiple attacks per round, so critical hits (and fumbles) are hardly a rare occurrence in our game.


If you're running into this, there's two possibilities I see. Either you're playing with people who hate you and are in a situation mirroring Talakeal's where you need to stop playing with people who personally dislike you...
.

I really don't think it is personal, I think it is just the way he is. He does it with everyone, regardless of whether he is the DM, a player, or just having a conversation. Heck, he even tells other DMs they are wrong during their game or when they are telling a story about a past game (the latter is, I think, his most annoying trait). I just happen to call him on it more often because of his current group he and I are the only people who have actually played before, the rest being total newbies to RPGs.

[Coidzor]

No, the chance of getting a critical hit at all is not 50%, but the chance of getting a critical hit against a target with total concealment is exactly half as likely as getting a critical hit against an opponent without concealment.

Well, of course, once he's already rolled a nat 20. But that's not the actual probability of either hitting or critting, that's a specific instance.

Besides, with what you've said about your DM's tenuous grasp on reality, let alone the rules of the game, you're going to have people point out the actual rules to you when you say something like "there's an even chance of hitting or missing" like that. :smalltongue:


He doesn't play with confirmation rolls and the enemy was getting multiple attacks per round, so critical hits (and fumbles) are hardly a rare occurrence in our game.

Of course.


I really don't think it is personal, I think it is just the way he is. He does it with everyone, regardless of whether he is the DM, a player, or just having a conversation. Heck, he even tells other DMs they are wrong during their game or when they are telling a story about a past game (the latter is, I think, his most annoying trait). I just happen to call him on it more often because of his current group he and I are the only people who have actually played before, the rest being total newbies to RPGs.

OK, OK, so he's an incarnate ball of horrid trollishness to everyone he encounters in meatspace. I can only boggle at how he doesn't receive censure for his anti-social tendencies, even amongst a subculture not noted for its social graces.

I admit, I didn't think someone who was universally horrible to everyone was really that possible, yet alone plausible to list as a possibility to Pippa. Especially not encountering such people in any real numbers.

Where on earth are you finding people who live life like they are caricatures of Sheldon Cooper, a character who is himself a caricature of both nerds and those on the autism spectrum? :smallconfused:

And How have you put up with him? Dude should be a walking ball of social isolation and ostracization. Or have possibly been a person who has actually been defenestrated.

[Doctor Awkward]

No, the chance of getting a critical hit at all is not 50%, but the chance of getting a critical hit against a target with total concealment is exactly half as likely as getting a critical hit against an opponent without concealment.

He doesn't play with confirmation rolls and the enemy was getting multiple attacks per round, so critical hits (and fumbles) are hardly a rare occurrence in our game.

For the record, I also had assumed he had rolled a 20 to crit you back, but that second part is also interesting.

Not that I'm accusing him of anything (this is more for my own curiosity), but does he roll his dice in front of the group, or are they always rolled behind the DM screen?

[Talakeal]

For the record, I also had assumed he had rolled a 20 to crit you back, but that second part is also interesting.

Not that I'm accusing him of anything (this is more for my own curiosity), but does he roll his dice in front of the group, or are they always rolled behind the DM screen?

No screen, but he sits at the far end of the table end never announces what he is rolling first so I guess he could be cheating.

But yeah, instead of confirmation rolls he just draws a card if you threaten a crit. So when we are wielding swords and getting multiple attacks per round it seems like crits happen almost as often as not for both sides.

[OldTrees1]

I don't want to turn this into another bashing on my DM thread, but if you look at some of my past it is a pretty frequent issue.

Just a quick warning:
You will note from this thread that the responses tend towards the extremes. In social situations like this (person A comes to talk to person B about person C) the outsider(person B) tends to want to side with either person A or person C even to the point of inventing extra conflict between person A and person C. This social tendency alone explains why several responses are so extreme.

So I recommend taking such responses with a bit of skepticism. After all Miscommunication is more common than Malice.

[danzibr]

Given pretty much everything to say in this thread has been said, I'll just throw in...

Were I the DM, I would've been like, ``Oh, my bad. Okay, no AoO.''

[Lorddenorstrus]

(to the OP)

I've seen similar situations while playing with one of my groups i'm in. I do think it was slightly different than yours though. Ours a guy crit and was supposed to blind the boss which for the situation he was in would've been slashing it's eyes. The thing seemed somehow unimpaired (It wasn't using it's eyes, it was being puppeteered via the bigger more later boss and his vision wasn't impaired obviously) but the player who'd crit to blind it was really annoyed that the boss still had AoO and seemed still as able to hit everyone and he argued with the DM on it until the DM got so pissed he basically had to spoiler a chunk of the story to explain why it wasn't effected. We abruptly ended that session when combat was over quite early.

So sometimes I wish people would just go with things.. but I do think your DM responded incorrectly to that situation unless he had unnamed reasoning for it.

[Doomeye56]

(to the OP)

I've seen similar situations while playing with one of my groups i'm in. I do think it was slightly different than yours though. Ours a guy crit and was supposed to blind the boss which for the situation he was in would've been slashing it's eyes. The thing seemed somehow unimpaired (It wasn't using it's eyes, it was being puppeteered via the bigger more later boss and his vision wasn't impaired obviously) but the player who'd crit to blind it was really annoyed that the boss still had AoO and seemed still as able to hit everyone and he argued with the DM on it until the DM got so pissed he basically had to spoiler a chunk of the story to explain why it wasn't effected. We abruptly ended that session when combat was over quite early.

So sometimes I wish people would just go with things.. but I do think your DM responded incorrectly to that situation unless he had unnamed reasoning for it.

I feel like this situation wasn't handled well by your DM, like he was trying to hard to keep the BBEG hidden. He didn't provide context to soothe his players like saying "The boss move as though he is unhampered by the lose of his eyes." It lets your players know that there is something other then the DM ignoring the rules is going on there.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I feel like this situation wasn't handled well by your DM, like he was trying to hard to keep the BBEG hidden. He didn't provide context to soothe his players like saying "The boss move as though he is unhampered by the lose of his eyes." It lets your players know that there is something other then the DM ignoring the rules is going on there.

Idk i'd been questioning that fight for awhile, when it got attacked from behind at one point it was able to parry as if it had vision.. (I believe he was tossing us a hint there, i mean you don't normally add flavor text to "you didn't beat it's AC even while attacking his blind spot in a sneak attack with X bonuses" even tho the dude rolled a 2 lol) and then it became 100% blind and ignored that. I'd basically got the gist of it from that and i think some other people did to.. but the dude who Crit just insisted it shouldn't be able to use AoO and be majorly hampered. And our opinions didn't matter apparently *shrug* the DM and him worked it out fine i guess cause no problems were there next session and we're still going strong. The guy doin the puppeteering is going to kick our asses soon to probably lol

[Doctor Awkward]

I feel like this situation wasn't handled well by your DM, like he was trying to hard to keep the BBEG hidden. He didn't provide context to soothe his players like saying "The boss move as though he is unhampered by the lose of his eyes." It lets your players know that there is something other then the DM ignoring the rules is going on there.

There's more to it than just wording it properly.

In my experience, being a good DM is about building trust up between you and your players. The players need to trust that you are playing by the same rules that they are. Part of your responsibility, especially with a new group, is to demonstrate that you are aware of the rules, and are willing to play by them even in the event that you forget one.

Players like to know what's going on, and I'm not talking about the plot. I'm talking about the rules of reality. If this thing works this way, then it should always work this way. If it doesn't there should always be a clear explanation why. Once you establish that nothing happens in your world without a reason, the players will become even more interested in when that thing suddenly doesn't work in this way. When something bizarre happens they'll start to get excited, and you can smirk and watch them squirm. But perhaps most importantly, they won't bother to question it.

This doesn't mean you lull the players into complacency and then run roughshod over the rules and do whatever you want. The DM should always be fair. And I do mean always; even at the expense of his totally radical story. If the DM isn't playing fair, then there's no point in playing. What it means is the players will go from being angry when something doesn't make sense, to being creeped out when it doesn't make sense. It will also go a long way to making you look like some kind of mad genius when you do forget a rule that they remind you of.
For instance:

You: "The creature takes off at a dead sprint, darting through the undergrowth as if it wasn't even there."
Players: "We can't let it escape now. We chase after it!"
You: "All right. After tracing it's path through the woods, you come across a dark cave. The light from the sun fails to penetrate more than twenty feet beyond the entrance, and you can see nothing but inky blackness beyond it."
Player A: "Wait, it outran us?"
You: *smile* "It sure did."
Player B: "How did it make it all the way through the cave at full speed? Shouldn't it have to move slower in total darkness?"
You: *thinking* Oops, I forgot about that... *keep smiling* "...Yeah I know, weird ain't it?"
Players: "Crap guys, what the hell were we fighting?"

From there on you just adjust your critter on the fly. Add a template on him that lets him see in the dark that they didn't notice before (this works very well if you are exceptionally vague in your initial description, i.e.: it looks like a bear, but something seems slightly off about it...), or put him under the effect of a spell, or give him a magic item. Doesn't really matter how you do it as long as there is an explanation for it.

[Elric VIII]

There's more to it than just wording it properly.

In my experience, being a good DM is about building trust up between you and your players. The players need to trust that you are playing by the same rules that they are. Part of your responsibility, especially with a new group, is to demonstrate that you are aware of the rules, and are willing to play by them even in the event that you forget one.

Players like to know what's going on, and I'm not talking about the plot. I'm talking about the rules of reality. If this thing works this way, then it should always work this way. If it doesn't there should always be a clear explanation why. Once you establish that nothing happens in your world without a reason, the players will become even more interested in when that thing suddenly doesn't work in this way. When something bizarre happens they'll start to get excited, and you can smirk and watch them squirm. But perhaps most importantly, they won't bother to question it.

This doesn't mean you lull the players into complacency and then run roughshod over the rules and do whatever you want. The DM should always be fair. And I do mean always; even at the expense of his totally radical story. If the DM isn't playing fair, then there's no point in playing. What it means is the players will go from being angry when something doesn't make sense, to being creeped out when it doesn't make sense. It will also go a long way to making you look like some kind of mad genius when you do forget a rule that they remind you of.
For instance:

You: "The creature takes off at a dead sprint, darting through the undergrowth as if it wasn't even there."
Players: "We can't let it escape now. We chase after it!"
You: "All right. After tracing it's path through the woods, you come across a dark cave. The light from the sun fails to penetrate more than twenty feet beyond the entrance, and you can see nothing but inky blackness beyond it."
Player A: "Wait, it outran us?"
You: *smile* "It sure did."
Player B: "How did it make it all the way through the cave at full speed? Shouldn't it have to move slower in total darkness?"
You: *thinking* Oops, I forgot about that... *keep smiling* "...Yeah I know, weird ain't it?"
Players: "Crap guys, what the hell were we fighting?"

From there on you just adjust your critter on the fly. Add a template on him that lets him see in the dark that they didn't notice before (this works very well if you are exceptionally vague in your initial description, i.e.: it looks like a bear, but something seems slightly off about it...), or put him under the effect of a spell, or give him a magic item. Doesn't really matter how you do it as long as there is an explanation for it.

This is probably one of the best ways to handle it as a DM. When my players point out rules errors I make, I just go with it and alter the plot slightly (while rewarding them for their "clever deduction," of course).

[Flickerdart]

The thing seemed somehow unimpaired (It wasn't using it's eyes, it was being puppeteered via the bigger more later boss and his vision wasn't impaired obviously) but the player who'd crit to blind it was really annoyed that the boss still had AoO and seemed still as able to hit everyone and he argued with the DM on it until the DM got so pissed he basically had to spoiler a chunk of the story to explain why it wasn't effected.
That's on the DM. "The guy is blinded and should be rolling on the floor in pain, but he's fighting as though he wasn't even struck" should make all kinds of alarm bells go off if presented as a revelation about the state of things rather than an intentional obfuscation.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I would say the two best ways I've found to approach a rules dispute are as follows.

1. Lead off by asking whether that's really how it works. Something like "I thought that if X is happening, then Y happened, not Z?," or "Isn't it that if Z doesn't happen because X?" This frames the discussion as one of confusion or at least something that should be looked up later. I recommend something like this even more highly if it's a complex rule set. See: Certain spells or magic in Pathfinder, explosives and their rebounding shockwaves in Shadowrun are just a tad too complicated to handle in a quick conversation. Unless you're bringing up the rule to save a character's life, don't bog down game flow.

or

2. (What you did) If you have the rule on hand, and it's going to be quick, politely try and show the GM that the rules you are looking at say something different. If he or she won't change their position, just ask to talk about it afterwards. If they don't want to change their minor rule, when you can present them the text, then there's no point having further discussion during the game.

[Yahzi]

So in the future, what is the etiquette for challenging the DM? Is speaking up "rules lawyering"?
You didn't do anything wrong.

However, the DM didn't either, PROVIDED that a) no PC was ever prevented from taking an AoO because they were blind in the past, and b) from now on blind characters still get to take AoOs (though hopefully the %50 miss chance still applies).

The DM is allowed to change the rules. What he is not allowed to do is be inconsistent. If, for whatever reason, he thinks his world runs better when blind people get to take AoOs, then fine: that's the way it is.

A game is a series of interesting choices. For choices to be interesting, you have to understand the consequences well enough to predict the possible outcomes. Thus the DM owes you consistency and coherency. RAW is a tool that helps achieve that but it is not the only way to achieve that.

[Coidzor]

You didn't do anything wrong.

However, the DM didn't either

Really? Throwing a temper tantrum isn't doing anything wrong? :smalltongue:

Besides, even without the interpersonal snafu, houseruling is one thing. Being in denial about houseruling is quite another.

[Psyren]

I don't want to turn this into another bashing on my DM thread, but if you look at some of my past it is a pretty frequent issue.

Your self-awareness does you credit :smalltongue: if it's the same guy/gal as all the other threads, my only question is "why haven't you changed groups yet? Or switched to online, or started your own game if there somehow aren't any others?"

[Killer Angel]

You didn't do anything wrong.

However, the DM didn't either, PROVIDED that a) no PC was ever prevented from taking an AoO because they were blind in the past, and b) from now on blind characters still get to take AoOs (though hopefully the %50 miss chance still applies).

The DM is allowed to change the rules. What he is not allowed to do is be inconsistent. If, for whatever reason, he thinks his world runs better when blind people get to take AoOs, then fine: that's the way it is.

Sure, the DM is allowed to change the rules.
But the DM should have the decency to admit that it's a change, not "in my book there's not that rule, you lawyer" (tacitly calling you liar)

[atemu1234]

Sure, the DM is allowed to change the rules.
But the DM should have the decency to admit that it's a change, not "in my book there's not that rule, you lawyer" (tacitly calling you liar)

Worse. He's calling you a lawyer .

[Barstro]

I'm the type of DM that says ''no comments or corrections or anything else'' during the game.


The DM is allowed to change the rules. What he is not allowed to do is be inconsistent. If, for whatever reason, he thinks his world runs better when blind people get to take AoOs, then fine: that's the way it is.

As has been mentioned, there CAN be reasons for a DM to not allow corrections during the game. IMO, Pippa's statement is horrible, if that is a blanket statement. But, if Pippa is a great DM who follows the true rules and has twists for a reason, then it is a fine philosophy.

Yahzi is correct, any rule is fine as long as it is consistent. I'd also prefer that altered rules be addressed before it comes up. My entire character planning might be changed by a simple rule change.

To me, it comes down to a couple hard rules;
0) Consistency is required. If it's good for the goose, it must also be good for the gander.

1) Basic RAW is what describes the universe in which we play. Those rules must be adhered to in order for everyone to understand the consequences of their actions and the world around them.
D&D Example; Strength modifier is used for melee attack and damage (barring other feats and weapon properties).
Real Example; F=MA, D=VT. If there were an American Football game where this no longer worked and suddenly passes went 200 mph and kicks went ten feet, nobody would be able to figure out what to do. Worse if those figures changed each game or each play.

2) If the DM is incorrect on basic RAW, it needs to be addressed right away. Even with as much as a) Show me and we will fix it, b) We will look at it after this fight, c) Not now, I'm on a roll, d) I've never played that way and I'm not going to. Feel free to change your character to match the universe I made.

3) If the DM (or player) is incorrect on advanced RAW (the interplay between multiple rules, AKA "Rules Lawyering"), then it may be best mentioned at the time, and fully addressed later. My group has often said "it works now, I'll look at it later and see if it is legal or if I'm going to disallow it."

A bad DM plays like a children's book; you have to ignore all the inconsistent facts and just get to the end.
A good DM is like Asimov. A seemingly bad fact that you thought you had to ignore to get through the book turns out to be exactly as written, and had you realized that, you would have discovered the "secret" of the person. (Happened for me with the Mule at the beach).Main character of the chapter inexplicably helped out a person at the beach who was being bullied.

In most books, this would just be a ham-fisted way to introduce a new character.

In Foundation, it was because the person being bullied had the power to control other people's emotions, and pretty much forced the other person to help (a very vital plot point, since the whole point of the book was that the unknown main antagonist was someone with that ability)

[dascarletm]

I find if I need to correct a DM on a rule it is easier to come at it first by describing why it wouldn't make sense in a logical sense (or as a follow up depending on what they, the DM, favor more rules or logic).

In this example I might have said something like:

"If he's blind though would he be able to know I'm doing X to provoke an attack? In the blinded condition it says <Insert rules> to simulate just that."

[Barstro]

I find if I need to correct a DM on a rule it is easier to come at it first by describing why it wouldn't make sense in a logical sense (or as a follow up depending on what they, the DM, favor more rules or logic).

This, however, is often what leads to bad interpretations. You gave a good example, though.

Bad example;
RAW says I get to charge 300 feet this round. If I'm going that fast, then I should have a lot of momentum and can hit even harder with my hammer. Give me a +4d6.
This makes sense, but there is not such thing as momentum in D&D.

But that's more about rule interpretation than how to address things with the DM.:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

This, however, is often what leads to bad interpretations. You gave a good example, though.

Bad example;
RAW says I get to charge 300 feet this round. If I'm going that fast, then I should have a lot of momentum and can hit even harder with my hammer. Give me a +4d6.
This makes sense, but there is not such thing as momentum in D&D.

But that's more about rule interpretation than how to address things with the DM.:smallbiggrin:

Well the idea is that you use that approach to explain things that ARE in the rules - not to try and slip things in that aren't.

For example, you say "A Medium creature with a 6' Greatsword doesn't have reach, and here's why that makes sense - not "My Medium creature has a Large Greatsword, give me reach!"

[Solaris]

Well, it takes just as long to say ''no comment, the game continues''.

And it takes even less time to say "Seeya."
DMs acting like they're infallible autocrats is something of a deal-breaker for me. I simply refuse to play with a DM who confuses it for their game.


The problem is too many players are playing the game just to point out the DM's mistakes. It can get very annoying. When a player makes a big deal about everything and ''what the rules say''.

Well, when your reaction to being called out on a ruling is so adversarial...

Your other responses indicate to me that your rule mastery is pretty solid. That's good.
What's not good is the implication that the DM is the only one who matters at the table, as players who disagree with a ruling are shot down for having the audacity to speak up against an error in judgment with neither explanation nor consideration granted. There are better ways to do that; as Coidzor said, it's better to react in a way that isn't shutting the players down. If nothing else, treating them like human beings rather than objects there for your amusement (because yes, that's how you're saying you treat them) discourages an adversarial relationship between players and DM, and thus helps towards building the necessary trust Tonymitsu mentioned in his excellent post. You don't need to entertain an hour-long debate on the subject, but it is best to at least be ready to give a brief explanation of the ruling. Even in the military, when I was handing out orders I was always ready with an explanation of the desired end-state and the reasoning for it. "Because I'm the sergeant and I said so" is not an acceptable reasoning unless you're cool with your troops (rightfully) thinking you're an autocratic douchebag who doesn't know his bunghole from a hole in the ground. I didn't entertain questions asking why we were doing what we were doing (a question about the desired end-state was fine, as was asking for help understanding the reasoning, but challenging the validity of a lawful order was unacceptable), but as a DM I do. The reason for the dichotomy is simple: As a sergeant, I had the privilege and the duty to take my kids into and out of life-threatening situations wherein immediate obedience was the difference between life and death. As a DM, I'm just another guy sitting at the table with the privilege of sharing my setting with my friends, and the only life-or-death situations are entirely fictional.

Thus, it taxes me nothing to say "He got his AoO despite being blinded, and you don't know why" or "Despite his blindness, the monster still moves as if it can perceive you - and he attacks you when you move away from him" and my players trust me all the more for it, both for the implication that there's a rules-solid reasoning that they can't see and for the respect I show them by not simply shutting them down with a "Because I'm the DM and I said so, that's why."


This, however, is often what leads to bad interpretations. You gave a good example, though.

Bad example;
RAW says I get to charge 300 feet this round. If I'm going that fast, then I should have a lot of momentum and can hit even harder with my hammer. Give me a +4d6.
This makes sense, but there is not such thing as momentum in D&D.

But that's more about rule interpretation than how to address things with the DM.:smallbiggrin:

My reaction;
Your character isn't terribly good at using that momentum; might I suggest levels in the scout class or the Powerful Charge feat?
(... even though I think movement and charging out to give everyone bonuses to damage scaling with how far they moved that round, it's probably best to work it without house-ruling it. It'd probably work best if the movement/charge multiplied the Strength bonus, perhaps with larger creatures getting an additional multiple and smaller creatures getting a reduced multiple...)

[Talakeal]

By the way, I DM 90+% of the time. I do understand the line where correcting the DM falls into rules lawyering.

I have had a number of instances where the players won't accept a ruling about an ambiguously written rule, nitpicked an NPC's build (or tactics, or equipment, or CR), refused to take my word on something, or wouldn't allow me to narrate an event without rolling.

I remember one time when a seemingly human enemy was actually a demon in disguise and the players started bitching me out for writing down the wrong damage total for the NPC (because he had damage reduction their characters didn't know about)*.

I also had a player throw a fit because I had him slip and fall while climbing without a roll. Now, I was doing this to show him that the magic ring he found earlier had the feather fall property, but he didn't let me get that far and instead derailed the game with a half hour argument.

One other guy I play with won't let the DM do anything that violates PC / NPC symmetry. If he describes and NPC doing something the player makes him roll for it, if he gives an NPC a custom spell / feat / item / ability or puts a nonstandard trap or "gimmick" in a dungeon the player walks out.


*This was not 3e. I am aware that in 3e monsters cannot hide their damage reduction. I always thought that was a really silly rule. Also, the blind NPC in my OP apparently had DR and the DM kept it secret, but that is NOT the sort of thing I am going to call him on.

[Psyren]

I also had a player throw a fit because I had him slip and fall while climbing without a roll. Now, I was doing this to show him that the magic ring he found earlier had the feather fall property, but he didn't let me get that far and instead derailed the game with a half hour argument.

I wouldn't be cool with this one either, to be honest. Your heart was in the right place but better to just leave the agency with them and let them figure the ring out (or not) organically. Slipping while climbing is indeed something that should be rolled, because it can make your character feel incompetent when they aren't and ruin immersion.

The damage one is on your players though, they shouldn't be metagaming damage like that at all. How did they even see the total anyway?

The guy who can't tolerate any sort of houserule is just a prima donna.

[Sacrieur]

You could always try logic.

"Are you sure a blind creature can make an attack of opportunity? That doesn't seem right."

If it persists then ask how a blind creature can see that you're attempting to pick up your sword and take advantage.

[Coidzor]

I have had a number of instances where the players won't accept a ruling about an ambiguously written rule, nitpicked an NPC's build (or tactics, or equipment, or CR), refused to take my word on something, or wouldn't allow me to narrate an event without rolling.

So you've got players as lousy to choose from as this DM is? I'm sorry. :smallfrown:


I remember one time when a seemingly human enemy was actually a demon in disguise and the players started bitching me out for writing down the wrong damage total for the NPC (because he had damage reduction their characters didn't know about)*.

Your first mistake was having your damage totals in front of your players without wanting to admit that there was damage reduction in play or anything else beyond what their characters would be aware of. So of course if you look like you're obviously fudging you're going to get called out on it. :smallconfused:


I also had a player throw a fit because I had him slip and fall while climbing without a roll. Now, I was doing this to show him that the magic ring he found earlier had the feather fall property, but he didn't let me get that far and instead derailed the game with a half hour argument.

Yeah, not the best way to showcase that sort of thing. Of course, I've never really been one for the whole "let's explore the mystery of what these magic items are! WHEE!" minigame, and even less so for items that are as boring and milquetoast as a ring of feather falling instead of some campaign arc item like the rod of 7 parts.


One other guy I play with won't let the DM do anything that violates PC / NPC symmetry. If he describes and NPC doing something the player makes him roll for it, if he gives an NPC a custom spell / feat / item / ability or puts a nonstandard trap or "gimmick" in a dungeon the player walks out.

Well, to be fair, he sounds like the kind of person your DM deserves. Why you willingly play with either of them is a mystery that strains credulity. :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

I'm not sure about Pathfinder, but 3.5E D&D has the line of you can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment. So if the foe has scent or tremorsense they are not blinded/get total concealment and can make an AoO.You would be more convincing if your example wasn't flat out wrong.

[Ashtagon]

If it takes time to look up a rule, the GM is within their rights to make a snap decision. If the rule is right there on an open page already, and the GM is contradicting it, there are three possible reasons:


An established house rule.
Something about the current situation is unknown to the players.
The GM is being a [redacted].
The GM hadn't known about the rule before, and thinks that the rule will unbalance the current adventure/scene.

[Coidzor]

An established house rule.
Something about the current situation is unknown to the players.
The GM is being a [redacted].
The GM hadn't known about the rule before, and thinks that the rule will unbalance the current adventure/scene.


1. That can't be right. A house rule isn't established unless it is made known to the players. If the players already know about the house rule, then it wouldn't be on an open page for the DM to contradict it.

2. There being something modifying the situation that isn't known to the players is also not a contradiction of the rule, but an extenuating circumstance.

3. is obviously what's going on in this particular instance.

4. I have to concede that one as a potential possibility, although it generally doesn't bode well if a DM refuses to admit that they'd forgotten about a particular rule.

[Ashtagon]

1 - It could be that the player has forgotten (intentionally or not) the house rule. Maybe the player only grudgingly agreed to the house rule and wants to make a stand once it has actually come up in play.

2 - This is actually the ideal situation. Maybe the monster doesn't use its eyes to see. Maybe the dragon isn't merely just another blue dragon. Maybe the sorcerer is actually a wizard. Maybe the house sits on an ancient Indian burial ground. And so on.

3 - Yes, that is apparently what happened in the OP's case.

[Psyren]

2 - This is actually the ideal situation. Maybe the monster doesn't use its eyes to see. Maybe the dragon isn't merely just another blue dragon. Maybe the sorcerer is actually a wizard. Maybe the house sits on an ancient Indian burial ground. And so on.

And this is a fine way of doing it - but given the GM's attitude, very few sane players would ever go along with a "trust me" reveal like this.

This is why the concept of "RAW as starting point" is so important. When your player whips out the book and says "see, this is how it works" you as the GM have to be able to say "oh I know - just go with it, it will make sense later." And bam, crisis averted.

[Coidzor]

1 - It could be that the player has forgotten (intentionally or not) the house rule. Maybe the player only grudgingly agreed to the house rule and wants to make a stand once it has actually come up in play.

2 - This is actually the ideal situation. Maybe the monster doesn't use its eyes to see. Maybe the dragon isn't merely just another blue dragon. Maybe the sorcerer is actually a wizard. Maybe the house sits on an ancient Indian burial ground. And so on.

3 - Yes, that is apparently what happened in the OP's case.

1 - :smallconfused: Then you still don't contradict the rule, you remind them of the houserule. It's possible, sure, that a player might pick a time to pull a "rule this way or I'll walk" but that shouldn't be one of the first places your mind goes, because that's really freaking bizarre. If you're regularly encountering that, I'm sorry. :smalleek:

2 - As long as it's actually the case and not lazy asspulling more often than not, yes, quite.

3 - Sadly. :smallfrown:

[Ashtagon]

2 - I prefer to think of it as the GM thinking on his feet after realising he made a mistake.

(/unfollowing thread)

[Tindragon]

So ...

You did nothing wrong, you seem to have done it right. We're all human. I've DMd for going on 3 decades. It happens. Your DM sounds like maybe he just doesn't understand that.

Carry on.

[LoyalPaladin]

There's a substantial difference between "there is a secret special ability at work" and "nuh-huh, that's not a rule, I can't hear you." It costs no time to say "yes, normally he wouldn't get an AoO when blind, but this guy does and you don't know why"
I really agree here. It would drive me insane if rules were being bent all the time by accident and the DM wouldn't hear it out when the rule was clarified by a player.
However, it is one of my biggest pet peeves when my fellow players decide to argue about a rule with the DM. Unless you know 100% the rule is different and can solve that in 3 seconds, I'd prefer you just wait till after session to talk to the DM. Oddly enough though, it doesn't bother me at all when my players correct the rules when I am DMing.

[Talakeal]

Your first mistake was having your damage totals in front of your players without wanting to admit that there was damage reduction in play or anything else beyond what their characters would be aware of. So of course if you look like you're obviously fudging you're going to get called out on it. :smallconfused:


Everyone writes their HP totals on the edge of the dry erase battlemat we use. It is a lot easier for us than scratch paper. My side of the table normally looks like a physics professor's chalkboard by the end of the session. It is in small writing on the far side of the table though so it is unlikely they will be able to make sense of anything on a casual glance and I have enough faith in them (apparently partially misplaced) that they won't actively study it just like I assume they won't read my adventure notes when I get up from the table to use the restroom.


Well, to be fair, he sounds like the kind of person your DM deserves. Why you willingly play with either of them is a mystery that strains credulity. :smalltongue:

Unfortunately no. This was a different (and much better) DM who doesn't take up the chair anymore because of stunts like this.


I wouldn't be cool with this one either, to be honest. Your heart was in the right place but better to just leave the agency with them and let them figure the ring out (or not) organically. Slipping while climbing is indeed something that should be rolled, because it can make your character feel incompetent when they aren't and ruin immersion.


I don't see it as particularly incompetent. Everyone makes mistakes now and again, its not like the character ( a level 4 wizard btw) was a master at climbing, and everyone rolls poorly on occasion.

Do you object to the DM setting up a scenario without making any rolls on principle or only in that specific instance? For example:

"You are lost in the forest. While searching for the path you come across a mysterious ruin..."
"While shopping a small child snatches your coin pouch and run off. You give chase and he eventually leads you to the lair of a previously undiscovered gang of thieves..."
"It is a lean winter and you are unable to find food, and are forced to come into town to trade. While there a mysterious stranger approaches you..."
"Your horse throws a shoe, forcing you to stop your ride prematurely and camp outside of city walls. In the night you are awakened by a mysterious sound coming from the shadows..."

Also, is it only automatic failure that annoys you? Would you have been ok with automatically scaling the surface without a test because the DM doesn't want to deal with a bunch of dice rolls for an insignificant climb? How about if the DM just put in circumstances outside of your control that resulted in an arbitrarily high difficulty such as a sudden windstorm that increases the climb DC by 15?

Also, how about NPCs? I have had one player who goes so far as to not let you narrate the effects of the NPCs actions when the players aren't involved, for example declaring the winner of a duel between NPCs.

[Amphetryon]

I don't see it as particularly incompetent. Everyone makes mistakes now and again, its not like the character ( a level 4 wizard btw) was a master at climbing, and everyone rolls poorly on occasion.

Do you object to the DM setting up a scenario without making any rolls on principle or only in that specific instance? For example:

"You are lost in the forest. While searching for the path you come across a mysterious ruin..."
"While shopping a small child snatches your coin pouch and run off. You give chase and he eventually leads you to the lair of a previously undiscovered gang of thieves..."
"It is a lean winter and you are unable to find food, and are forced to come into town to trade. While there a mysterious stranger approaches you..."
"Your horse throws a shoe, forcing you to stop your ride prematurely and camp outside of city walls. In the night you are awakened by a mysterious sound coming from the shadows..."

Also, is it only automatic failure that annoys you? Would you have been ok with automatically scaling the surface without a test because the DM doesn't want to deal with a bunch of dice rolls for an insignificant climb? How about if the DM just put in circumstances outside of your control that resulted in an arbitrarily high difficulty such as a sudden windstorm that increases the climb DC by 15?

Also, how about NPCs? I have had one player who goes so far as to not let you narrate the effects of the NPCs actions when the players aren't involved, for example declaring the winner of a duel between NPCs.

If my Character is a wilderness survival expert (max Survival in 3.X, for instance) at higher than the lowest levels of the game, yes, I'd be more than a little concerned about 'lost in the woods' as the basic premise, because my concept is centered around 'lost in the woods' not being a thing.

If the chance of failing at something is laughably remote (wilderness survival expert becoming hopelessly lost, for example), then it's my general opinion that this sort of thing should only happen either with the consent of the player ('Hey, Pat, the adventure tonight hinges on starting somewhere that your tracker extraordinaire can't find his way out of; okay?') or the poorest of luck ('Wow, you rolled seven Survival checks below 15 in a row, despite a +11 on the check. Looks like that creek you were following wasn't Haggar Creek, after all').

That said, if the chance of failure won't add anything interesting to the narrative, there's generally no reason to roll it in most systems I know. Your example of scaling an insignificant surface falls under this heading. It's not about whether it's a success or failure that's at stake. It's about whether the chance of failure is plausible (the less plausible, the more necessary the use of the game's mechanics) and interesting (the less interesting, the less necessary the use of the game's mechanics).

[Galen]

The DM can easily make it work by striking out "you are lost in the woods and ..." with "you are exploring a remote corner of the woods, and ...". A cosmetic change mostly, but makes the character feel much more at home with the premise of the adventure.

[Psyren]

What Amphetryon and Galen said - there are much better ways to handle this. Railroading isn't bad, but letting the rails/strings be so blatantly visible is a mark of the lazy or unskilled.

[Talakeal]

I don't think setting up an adventure hook really counts as "railroading" unless you are actively ignoring a character or players motivation to force them into it. Would you consider something like "You are drinking in a tavern when a mysterious old man approaches you with an offer" or "You are walking through the town square when you notice a bounty on bandits posted on the notice board", or "You are just sitting down to dinner when there is a knock on the door," to be railroading? Because I wouldn't, and aside from the fact that a character "failed" a skill test first these don't seem any different to those I listed. Now you certainly could railroad in this manner, but I don't think one necessarily follows the other.

Also, would you consider it more fun to simply use the games mechanics for the same ends? Rather than "You successfully scale 10 cliffs, but on the eleventh you slip and X happens" would it be more fun to say "Roll 20 climb checks, difficulty fifteen, to scale the 20 cliffs" and then explain what happens once they fail one?

Even if the player only fails on a 2 they will still, by the rules, fail once every 20 days. I don't think it is railroading or showing the player as incompetent to simply set on adventure on that 20th day rather than the other 19.

[Amphetryon]

I don't think setting up an adventure hook really counts as "railroading" unless you are actively ignoring a character or players motivation to force them into it. Would you consider something like "You are drinking in a tavern when a mysterious old man approaches you with an offer" or "You are walking through the town square when you notice a bounty on bandits posted on the notice board", or "You are just sitting down to dinner when there is a knock on the door," to be railroading? Because I wouldn't, and aside from the fact that a character "failed" a skill test first these don't seem any different to those I listed. Now you certainly could railroad in this manner, but I don't think one necessarily follows the other.

Also, would you consider it more fun to simply use the games mechanics for the same ends? Rather than "You successfully scale 10 cliffs, but on the eleventh you slip and X happens" would it be more fun to say "Roll 20 climb checks, difficulty fifteen, to scale the 20 cliffs" and then explain what happens once they fail one?

Even if the player only fails on a 2 they will still, by the rules, fail once every 20 days. I don't think it is railroading or showing the player as incompetent to simply set on adventure on that 20th day rather than the other 19.

'You are drinking in a tavern' isn't predicated on a Character failing at something, unless someone's concept involves 'recovering substance abuser.'

[Galen]

"You are sitting in a tavern, working through Step 11: exposure to substance without falling off the wagon"

[Talakeal]

'You are drinking in a tavern' isn't predicated on a Character failing at something, unless someone's concept involves 'recovering substance abuser.'

No, it isn't. That's exactly my point. I was asking how setting up a scenario becomes "railroading" just basic part of the presupposition involves a failed dice roll.

Now, if the character was a teetotaler or a loner who never engaged in social situations I would consider it railroading, just like I would consider it odd if someone with a massive skill failed on a trivial task, but absent such conditions I would consider both failure on a skill check and deciding to go out for a drink to be perfectly reasonable ways to introduce an adventure hook.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't think setting up an adventure hook really counts as "railroading" unless you are actively ignoring a character or players motivation to force them into it. Would you consider something like "You are drinking in a tavern when a mysterious old man approaches you with an offer" or "You are walking through the town square when you notice a bounty on bandits posted on the notice board", or "You are just sitting down to dinner when there is a knock on the door," to be railroading?

The difference is those things are all totally out of the characters control, which is a far cry from having them auto-fail skill checks as a means of introducing your "totally radical story".

It's pretty similar to that scene from The Gamers, where the DM initiates the bandit encounter by ambushing the party in the woods. Assuming that Newmoon was following the proper rules, that was a completely legitimate gripe. Why didn't he get his surprise roll? While it turns out that he did, what with the GM rolling for him, he didn't know that at the time. Now had the DM decided to give him his roll and he succeeded, the encounter still could have still happened exactly in the same way, except with that the party wouldn't have started out surrounded. They would have stumbled across the bandits preparing to ambush travelers on the road they were on, and, being heroes, would most certainly have attacked them to prevent that.

The difference is that auto-failing people on skills, especially ones they really have no business needing to roll in the first place, is taking control over a characters own actions completely out of the players hands. That's not a cool thing to do.

[Amphetryon]

No, it isn't. That's exactly my point. I was asking how setting up a scenario becomes "railroading" just basic part of the presupposition involves a failed dice roll.

Now, if the character was a teetotaler or a loner who never engaged in social situations I would consider it railroading, just like I would consider it odd if someone with a massive skill failed on a trivial task, but absent such conditions I would consider both failure on a skill check and deciding to go out for a drink to be perfectly reasonable ways to introduce an adventure hook.

So, changing the conditions of the encounter, creates a different encounter premise and feel. Yes. Definitely.

[dascarletm]

Usually i find as a DM it is more kosher to go off of what they say. This gives the players the feeling of control over their character, and what they say may surprise you and end up being really fun.

Examples:

Instead of saying your character is doing X in town and Y happens, I say, "You are in town while Z is going on, what do each of your characters do?" Player A may just say he is sitting in the tavern talking up the other patrons or something along those lines. I can then say that one of the patrons he meets tells you something <insert plot hook>. Or they could end up saying something that will throw you for a loop. This may lead to an interesting side adventure.

[Talakeal]

The difference is those things are all totally out of the characters control, which is a far cry from having them auto-fail skill checks as a means of introducing your "totally radical story".

It's pretty similar to that scene from The Gamers, where the DM initiates the bandit encounter by ambushing the party in the woods. Assuming that Newmoon was following the proper rules, that was a completely legitimate gripe. Why didn't he get his surprise roll? While it turns out that he did, what with the GM rolling for him, he didn't know that at the time. Now had the DM decided to give him his roll and he succeeded, the encounter still could have still happened exactly in the same way, except with that the party wouldn't have started out surrounded. They would have stumbled across the bandits preparing to ambush travelers on the road they were on, and, being heroes, would most certainly have attacked them to prevent that.

The difference is that auto-failing people on skills, especially ones they really have no business needing to roll in the first place, is taking control over a characters own actions completely out of the players hands. That's not a cool thing to do.

First off, if the players don't enjoy my story why the hell are they at the table in the first place? They should just save everyone's time and feelings and leave now regardless of how I choose to introduce the hook.

Second, there clearly is a need to roll the skill test in the first place, otherwise why would I bother to narrate the outcome? It is just in this case the more beneficial outcome happens to occur on a failure rather than a success and I am glossing over the uninteresting rolls to get there.

For example, imagine these three scenarios:
The players are spending the winter foraging to survive and living in a cabin in the woods. There is a nearby trading post where the players can resupply and I have an adventure hook planted there. I can decide:
a: Tell the players to roll a survival check every day with a high but not guaranteed chance of success.
b: Use the law of averages and assume they succeed most of the time but will eventually fail. Gloss over the individual rolls and tell them that at one point in the winter they fail.
c: Force the players by giving them an impossibly high test and telling them that the coldest winter in history has killed all life in the region.
d: Tell the players they are in the trading post, to hell with the reasons.

All of these have the exact same amount of railroading and the exact same outcome / respect for the players abilities. But in my mind b is just flat out easier and less intrusive.


Thirdly, this is not something I have ever seen a problem with in 25 years of gaming on both sides of the screen. This was literally the only time it ever came up, and after learning the full context the player who objected apologized for raising a fuss over nothing and told me that in the future I could just tell him to go into "cut scene" mode and he would trust me to narrate whatever I liked.



So, changing the conditions of the encounter, creates a different encounter premise and feel. Yes. Definitely.

Yes, but does it have anything to do with railroading?

I do not see how:

1: You failed to pick the lock on the main door and thus snuck around the back entrance of the dungeon
2: You succeeded on picking the lock on the back door and have used the rear entrance of the dungeon
3: You find the back door of the dungeon unlocked and enter.

are any different from a "railroading" perspective. All three have an identical amount of player input and end up in the exact same place.

[Amphetryon]

\

Yes, but does it have anything to do with railroading?

I do not see how:

1: You failed to pick the lock on the main door and thus snuck around the back entrance of the dungeon
2: You succeeded on picking the lock on the back door and have used the rear entrance of the dungeon
3: You find the back door of the dungeon unlocked and enter.

are any different from a "railroading" perspective. All three have an identical amount of player input and end up in the exact same place.

If you do not grok the difference between the Player's choices and rolls for his Character impacting the plot, versus the DM declaring what the Characters actions are without consultation with Player choice, rolls, or even informed consent, impacting the plot then I don't know how else to explain the concept of railroading to you. The former is emergent storytelling. The latter is DM Story Hour.

[Talakeal]

I find it kind of funny how popular 5E D&D is. I see so many people talking about how much even an occasional failure on a test hurts their fun and makes them feel that their character is incompetent while 5E D&D makes it all but impossible to build your character to reliably succeed at anything.



If you do not grok the difference between the Player's choices and rolls for his Character impacting the plot, versus the DM declaring what the Characters actions are without consultation with Player choice, rolls, or even informed consent, impacting the plot then I don't know how else to explain the concept of railroading to you. The former is emergent storytelling. The latter is DM Story Hour.

No, I absolutely DO understand that negating player agency is railroading. What I don't understand is why ignoring player agency through a failed dice roll is more railroady than simply negating player agency through a decision.

"You are lost in the forest and take refuge in a strange cavern during a storm" vs. "You have followed the map the old man gave you to a mysterious cave entrance."


Now, I also don't think railroading is necessarily a bad thing, nor do any players I have ever gamed with. As long as you are respecting peoples characters and only using it to get the plot moving or keep the group together. My players would find "You are travelling and get lost, stumbling upon a dungeon entrance" to be infinitely more fun than being let loose in the forest and told to find their own fun within and arguing for two hours over what direction to go. As long as the DM isn't continually putting me in scenarios that are at odds with my character or grossly violate my ethos I prefer some rails to the adventure as the DM is almost certain to have better material if I allow him to prepare before the game vs. wing it on the fly.

[Flickerdart]

What I don't understand is why ignoring player agency through a failed dice roll is more railroady than simply negating player agency through a decision.
Because the system doesn't provide mechanics for decisions. Taking a decision is not spitting in the face of invested resources. It is plausible that an adventurer would take a quest from a mysterious old man. It is not plausible that an experienced woodsman would get lost in his backyard.

[Talakeal]

Because the system doesn't provide mechanics for decisions. Taking a decision is not spitting in the face of invested resources. It is plausible that an adventurer would take a quest from a mysterious old man. It is not plausible that an experienced woodsman would get lost in his backyard.

But the rules don't necessarily back that up. I am not talking about forcing failure on a character who automatically succeeds on a test; I am merely talking about assuming the character fails a percentage of the time in accordance with the probability curve of the dice roll and using it as a narrative jumping off point.

[johnbragg]

If it takes time to look up a rule, the GM is within their rights to make a snap decision. If the rule is right there on an open page already, and the GM is contradicting it, there are three possible reasons:


An established house rule.
Something about the current situation is unknown to the players.
The GM is being a [redacted].
The GM hadn't known about the rule before, and thinks that the rule will unbalance the current adventure/scene.


5. The GM hadn't known about the rule, and wants the game to move along, rather than regularly getting mired in appeals to RAW and rules arguments.
i.e. Even if I'm wrong, correct me after the encounter, not in the middle of combat.

[Amphetryon]

But the rules don't necessarily back that up. I am not talking about forcing failure on a character who automatically succeeds on a test; I am merely talking about assuming the character fails a percentage of the time in accordance with the probability curve of the dice roll and using it as a narrative jumping off point.

At which point you're letting the Player know that he might as well have left his dice at home, since what he actually rolled is less important to your story than the statistical probability that he did something to mesh with the story you wanted to tell.

[Flickerdart]

But the rules don't necessarily back that up.
Except when they do, which is constantly - just from ranks and a modest Wisdom bonus, you hit the DC 15 "keep from getting lost" by taking 10, at level 1.

[Doctor Awkward]

No, I absolutely DO understand that negating player agency is railroading. What I don't understand is why ignoring player agency through a failed dice roll is more railroady than simply negating player agency through a decision.

Because it puts players in situations where they have no idea what's going on.
It's the difference between discovering a plot hook through their character's own abilities, rather than have you spoon feed it to them.
If they fail at doing something (climbing the cliff, navigating the creepy forest, finding food to survive the winter), but still discover the plot, then what was the point in trying to succeed?
Eventually they'll just stop bothering with skills altogether, unless they help them in combat somehow.

[Galen]

No, I absolutely DO understand that negating player agency is railroading. What I don't understand is why ignoring player agency through a failed dice roll is more railroady than simply negating player agency through a decision.Because it's not really a failed die roll. The player never really rolled a die, and of course never failed. The DM just decided he did.

There's very little difference between "Ranger, you can't attempt to make a survival check to keep yourself from getting lost" and "Sure, you can attempt to make a survival check to keep yourself from getting lost ... but it will autofail". Both are about equally bad.

[Lawleepawpz]

In this case, yeah, it was fine. Looking up rules mid combat on your turn is usually bad, but if you have it open already, to me at the least, it's fine.



Though I kinda have this problem with my players, only on a larger scale. Instead of one rule, they will literally look up anything and debate a lot of snap judgments that come up. (You guys all know those)

If it gets really late and they did it several times already, I've done stuff to get back at them (While I really should not have, we were all tired and I was annoyed with their repeated debates)

The worst was probably changing a Wizards list (They were fighting a level 8 wizard, two fighters, and a couple low end monsters at level 10) from the most dangerous spell him having being Fireball to a God-Wizard-like list. I nearly killed two of them because it. One failed a save vs Deeper Slumber, the other vs a Hold Person spell.

[Talakeal]

Let me start out by saying I REALLY don't understand why this is such a problem. In all my years of gaming I have had precisely one player get mad about this a single time, and then afterwards apologize for being out of line. I never even considered this is a possibility.


Because it's not really a failed die roll. The player never really rolled a die, and of course never failed. The DM just decided he did.

There's very little difference between "Ranger, you can't attempt to make a survival check to keep yourself from getting lost" and "Sure, you can attempt to make a survival check to keep yourself from getting lost ... but it will autofail". Both are about equally bad.

Telling them something is impossible is pretty lame, I agree. But



Because it puts players in situations where they have no idea what's going on.
It's the difference between discovering a plot hook through their character's own abilities, rather than have you spoon feed it to them.
If they fail at doing something (climbing the cliff, navigating the creepy forest, finding food to survive the winter), but still discover the plot, then what was the point in trying to succeed?
Eventually they'll just stop bothering with skills altogether, unless they help them in combat somehow.

Hyperbole much? Because I very rarely decide the outcome of an event without rolling between encounters / adventures they will stop trying to use skills at all?


Except when they do, which is constantly - just from ranks and a modest Wisdom bonus, you hit the DC 15 "keep from getting lost" by taking 10, at level 1.

Hence the necessarily. I repeat, this isn't about making someone fail when they should auto succeed, this is about using their statistically normal failure rate as a springboard for advancing the plot.


At which point you're letting the Player know that he might as well have left his dice at home, since what he actually rolled is less important to your story than the statistical probability that he did something to mesh with the story you wanted to tell.

Again, yes, he might as well have left his dice at home for that 60 second interlude between encounters during which I narrate an event. Of course he will probably want to pick them up for the other hundred or so tests that are rolled normally.

If I had spent the same sixty seconds saying "A little gnome runs out and tells you "Ah! I see you possess the magical ring of Xvarius! My grandfather once told me that it will allow you to survive a fall from any height! Lucky you! Toodles!" might the player have left his dice at home because that scene didn't even have an opportunity for him to roll the climb skill?

[Doctor Awkward]

Because I very rarely decide the outcome of an event without rolling between encounters / adventures they will stop trying to use skills at all?

Yes.

The players have no idea what's going on behind your screen. If you do this even once then every single time it comes up after that they will wonder if it was just another instance of an impossible task for the purposes of introducing the plot. If you call for a skill check, then that skill check needs to matter. And it always needs to matter. If sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, then you lose internal consistency, and the trust between you and your players.

[Talakeal]

Look, I get that some of you prefer sandbox games with no "plot" as such or down to business games without flavorful descriptions of things, but that isn't how I or my group role. We all prefer a structure as it cuts down on conflict and boredom and generally leads to a better game as the DM has had a chance to think about the plot and write down notes and calculate stats ahead of time. Except for one power gamer we all enjoy storyline and flavor text and find the game a lot richer if the DM or the players actually describe things rather than simply stating events. In my mind weaving story hooks into the events of the characters lives is more immersive, even if it does involve an occasional DM FIAT, and as long as it doesn't go against my character I am fine allowing the DM to put my character into a scenario.

To use an example, one time I used the following description to set up a scene:

"As you are travelling along the road through the great forest you spot a deer on the embankment overlooking the side of the road. Deciding that some fresh meat would be a nice change from rations you slowly draw your bow, take aim, and fire. But at the last second the deer picks up your scent and bolts into the underbrush, your shot going wild. A moment later a mysterious metallic sound rings out from deeper in the woods, reverberating for a moment before falling silent. As you decide to investigate the sound you find the remains of an old village long since overgrown. You see that your arrow must have struck the rusted bell of the ancient church to make the sound you heard earlier. As you enter the church you see the mummified bodies of the townspeople, huddled in the pews where they went seeking salvation from the plague that claimed their life a century ago, wiping this forgotten village from the map."

The player eventually befriended the spirit of the town and received a magic bow. The player never once complained the scenario started with them missing a shot, as such a thing is unlikely but still possible according to the rules and the cost of failure is, at worst, a single arrow.

Now the player in question is the aforementioned power gamer, yet he still remembers this scene fondly years later. There is, in my mind, a lot more richness and depth than if he had merely stumbled upon it while hiking.



Yes.

The players have no idea what's going on behind your screen. If you do this even once then every single time it comes up after that they will wonder if it was just another instance of an impossible task for the purposes of introducing the plot. If you call for a skill check, then that skill check needs to matter. And it always needs to matter. If sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, then you lose internal consistency, and the trust between you and your players.

I absolutely 100% agree with you.

In fact I am one of the strongest proponents of rolling in the open and telling the players the difficulty number before they roll. Unless they are being deceived in character (for example fighting an illusory monster) what you see is what you get when it comes to dice rolls at my table and the only time I ever roll dice behind the screen if when the PCs legitimately don't know what is causing them (such as stealth rolls for a monster waiting in ambush).

But I didn't ask for a skill check.

I said "You are exploring the ruins and climbing many walls. The first time you slip while climbing your ring begins to glow and you discover it has magic levitation properties." The player in question was not an expert climber, they were a third level wizard. If I had asked for rolls the result would have been exactly the same as, due to the magic ring, there is no consequence for failing, and the "best" thing that could happen would be them miraculously not failing a single test and being in the exact same shape except they are now clueless about the ring.


On a related story, one of the worst DMs I have ever played under actually took your example one step further. He rolled ALL dice for the players behind his screen, however he never told anyone this, and let the players go about rolling on their own and telling him the results while he nodded and pretended to factor them in.

[Coidzor]

But the rules don't necessarily back that up. I am not talking about forcing failure on a character who automatically succeeds on a test; I am merely talking about assuming the character fails a percentage of the time in accordance with the probability curve of the dice roll and using it as a narrative jumping off point.

When someone goes to roll for something, you don't jump in ahead of them and declare that they fail. That's just rude.

The only real exception to that comes to mind offhand is if it's something where they can't succeed and would auto-fail, so no roll is necessary and they're informed that such is the case, and in those sorts of cases an "Are you sure?" might be in order when they declare their intent to do so, depending upon the consequences for failure. And then only if it's a challenge they'd legitimately auto-fail rather than that they'd auto-fail out of ad-hoc DM fiat, like a DC 30 check for someone with a +4 modifier.

By violating etiquette you set yourself up for player bristling. You then weren't able to negotiate that interpersonal challenge adroitly and that derailed your game for a fairly lengthy period of time.

The the player eventually apologized for their part in the altercation doesn't vindicate you or relieve you of your own culpability in the situation.

[Talakeal]

When someone goes to roll for something, you don't jump in ahead of them and declare that they fail. That's just rude.

The only real exception to that comes to mind offhand is if it's something where they can't succeed and would auto-fail, so no roll is necessary and they're informed that such is the case, and in those sorts of cases an "Are you sure?" might be in order when they declare their intent to do so, depending upon the consequences for failure. And then only if it's a challenge they'd legitimately auto-fail rather than that they'd auto-fail out of ad-hoc DM fiat, like a DC 30 check for someone with a +4 modifier.

By violating etiquette you set yourself up for player bristling. You then weren't able to negotiate that interpersonal challenge adroitly and that derailed your game for a fairly lengthy period of time.

The the player eventually apologized for their part in the altercation doesn't vindicate you or relieve you of your own culpability in the situation.

A lot of baseless assumptions in your post.

He didn't go to roll anything and I didn't interrupt anything, quite the opposite. I said "While you are exploring the ruins you climb down a ledge and start to slip when..." and then the player interrupts me and goes on a tirade that derails the game about how he should be allowed to roll.

I tell him he should just trust me for a moment and let me finish my sentence, he says no and asks to roll.

I say ok and let him roll.

He rolls, and fails anyway (again, he is a level 3 wizard who didn't have a high str or any ranks in climb), and then I finish my description.

Realizing what I was trying to do he gets embarrassed, apologizes, and tells me that in the future I should just let him know we are doing a "cut-scene*" so it doesn't happen again.

The whole thing lasted about 5 minutes.


*: He was not using the term "cut scene" as a put down, the player in question was a big video game fan and was using the term in a positive manner.

[Coidzor]

A lot of baseless assumptions in your post.

[-snip-]

The whole thing lasted about 5 minutes.

Mistaken, yes, but not baseless when that's what your statements would lead someone to believe happened. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

@Talakeal

I do not think this argument is worth your time. The other side is unknowingly arguing with a strawman of your position and is no longer listening to your attempts to reveal that issue.


There is nothing wrong with a DM using a narrative summary of the disproportionately probable result when doing so allows the group to skip onwards for their greater enjoyment of the group. There is no need to roll 20d20 when the cumulative chance is <5% and there is no negative play experience from failing.

[Doctor Awkward]

...the "best" thing that could happen would be them miraculously not failing a single test and being in the exact same shape except they are now clueless about the ring.

Then they remain clueless about the ring. If they don't figure out the properties of a magic item right away, save for the fact that it's magical, but decide to keep it anyway, who cares when they figure out what it does?

So long as the player continues to climb and be at heights higher than the ground, the statistical probability of falling steadily approaches 1. Which one makes for a more memorable and dramatic scene: you telling the player they failed at climbing and the ring saved them, or getting thrown from a cliff during combat, and the ring actually saving them?

Part of maintaining suspension of disbelief in your campaign requires maintaining sensibility regarding the player's abilities.
If you are trying to introduce a plot hook by having the party stumble upon a cave (or a whatever), and your first thought is to get the party lost in the woods, but that party also includes a ranger that is literally incapable of failing Survival checks to get lost?
Too bad. Be creative. Find another way to introduce your hook.

For example:

DM: "Okay what's everyone doing today."
Spellcaster: "Scribe some scrolls. Continue my spell research."
Rogue: "Cook up some alchemical items to pass the time."
Melee: "Practice. Guard the house, and keep an eye out for threats."
Ranger: "I'll go hunting for some food."
DM: "And scout a bit?"
Ranger: "Sure, that sounds good."
DM: "Cool, roll Survival."
Ranger: *makes an obscenely high check*
DM: "Well you certainly have no problem at all locating food. For the month. However, a fair distance away from the cabin, you come across a rather large rock formation in your explorations, with a cave leading downwards. It's largely unremarkable, except for the fact that you're certain it's not marked on your map of the area. As you approach the cave you are gripped with a sudden sense of foreboding you can't quite explain."
Ranger: "...How far away from the house am I right now?"
*details*

There is no way in all the Nine Hells they will leave the cave alone after that, and the players got to the plot by doing something instead of, for lack of a better term, you railroading them to it.
If, for some reason, you absolutely must get the party lost somehow, Be. Creative!

Ranger: "We're good on food, but I found this cave here *points at map* and I think there's something off about it. I think we should check it out."
Party: "All right, let's go."
DM: Roll Survival
*hours later*
DM: "You definitely lead them back to the same spot you were at before, but the cave is nowhere to be seen."
Party: "What the crap?"
DM: *shrug*
Rogue: "What time is it?"
DM: "By your reckoning, a few minutes before sunset."
Ranger: "It might be risky trying to head back in the dark."
Melee: "Maybe we should set up camp and start fresh in the morning."
*Roll some dice during the night.*
DM: "Okay, the night passes uneventfully. You wake up the next morning, and find yourselves in unfamiliar surroundings. Your camp is intact, you are still in the woods, but your immediate vicinity doesn't look at all like it did when you went to sleep. And roughly twenty yards away from you is a large rock formation with a yawning cave opening leading into darkness.
Party: "...Seriously! What the crap!??"
DM: *smile*

There are any number of illusion spells you could use to explain this phenomena, which they will probably uncover over the course of their investigation. Maybe A Wizard Did It. Maybe it's some kind of naturally occurring phenomena. The difference is that the players are the ones dictating the course of the campaign. Even though they arrive at the same destination, they took their own road to get there.
EDIT Addendum: You will always do your best work when you impose restrictions and limitations on yourself, like working within the parties capabilities, when coming up with plots.

[goto124]

DM: "You definitely lead them back to the same spot you were at before, but the cave is nowhere to be seen."
Party: "What the crap?"
DM: *shrug*

I would've said 'hope the players trust you enough to not strangle you at this point', but then I thought 'if the players have that little trust in the DM, they shouldn't be playing with him'. Not sure how correct I am here.

It also helps to have a flexible plot I guess?

And I guess it takes practice to come up with stuff on your feet, especially when you haven't remembered the ranger has that good Survival ranks.

[Psyren]

@Talakeal

I do not think this argument is worth your time. The other side is unknowingly arguing with a strawman of your position and is no longer listening to your attempts to reveal that issue.


There is nothing wrong with a DM using a narrative summary of the disproportionately probable result when doing so allows the group to skip onwards for their greater enjoyment of the group. There is no need to roll 20d20 when the cumulative chance is <5% and there is no negative play experience from failing.

I agree, it's a waste of time for us to continue trying to explain this concept.


Then they remain clueless about the ring. If they don't figure out the properties of a magic item right away, save for the fact that it's magical, but decide to keep it anyway, who cares when they figure out what it does?

Exactly, thank you.

[Coidzor]

I do not think this argument is worth your time. The other side is unknowingly arguing with a strawman of your position and is no longer listening to your attempts to reveal that issue.

It's pretty clear that there's plenty of miscommunication and misinterpretation going around, really.


Look, I get that some of you prefer sandbox games with no "plot" as such or down to business games without flavorful descriptions of things, but that isn't how I or my group role.

There's no way that this sentence makes sense, otherwise.

[Talakeal]

It's pretty clear that there's plenty of miscommunication and misinterpretation going around, really.

I agree there. I think both sides are reading far too much into what the other side is saying and basing their arguments on more than was actually said.



There's no way that this sentence makes sense, otherwise.

That was mostly a response towards Tonymitsu's comments on the DM railroading as a chance to share his "radical awesome story" comment rather than anything you, Psyren, or Amphetryon said.

[Sliver]

Everyone writes their HP totals on the edge of the dry erase battlemat we use. It is a lot easier for us than scratch paper. My side of the table normally looks like a physics professor's chalkboard by the end of the session. It is in small writing on the far side of the table though so it is unlikely they will be able to make sense of anything on a casual glance and I have enough faith in them (apparently partially misplaced) that they won't actively study it just like I assume they won't read my adventure notes when I get up from the table to use the restroom.

You know, DR isn't an unnoticeable ability?


Damage Reduction
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

I dunno, but I tell my players that their characters notice their attacks aren't as effective as they ought to be. Same with energy resistance (though that one isn't RAW, as far as I can tell) and fast healing...

[Talakeal]

You know, DR isn't an unnoticeable ability?

Yes. But as I said in an earlier post this was not in 3E.

Honestly it depends a lot on the specific circumstances. If, for example, you shoot a guy and the bullet bounces off like superman that is pretty noticeable, but if the bullet simply flattens against his skin leaving a hole in his shirt (or even sticks into the guy but he then heals) I am not quite sure how that would be noticed.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

"You are lost in the forest. While searching for the path you come across a mysterious ruin..."

Not cool, getting lost shouldn't be automatic. There are survival checks and whatnot. The woods could be enchanted, but then there should be a check related to that. You need to add an additional stressor if you want PC's to get lost.



"While shopping a small child snatches your coin pouch and run off. You give chase and he eventually leads you to the lair of a previously undiscovered gang of thieves..."

Snatching the pouch is automatic if the theif rolls 20, the opposed check is only to detect the theft. Rules for chasing are obscure enough that I expect them to be houseruled, so keeping up without a roll being automatic is pretty ok.



"It is a lean winter and you are unable to find food, and are forced to come into town to trade. While there a mysterious stranger approaches you..."

Depends on the game. In some games I would be upset by not getting the appropriate checks and I'd also point out numerous low level spells that could sustain the party if there's any kind of time crunch. In other games where fast forwarding between scenarios is the norm, like a "campaign" that is a series of modules, I'd be fine with it.




"Your horse throws a shoe, forcing you to stop your ride prematurely and camp outside of city walls. In the night you are awakened by a mysterious sound coming from the shadows..."

If I knew more about horse riding I might have more to say. I will say that if the whole party had horses and I often made a point of mentioning my horse maintenance whenever we make camp, I might take issue with it being “my” horse rather than say the Wizard's. Also, I do know that a horse can be ridden with a shoe missing to the detriment of the horse and some characters might choose that option or be ready with any number of alternative means of travel. On the other hand, the same caveat from above, in some games I'd be much more comfortable with this happening at the start of the session before any dice have been rolled than mid session.




Also, is it only automatic failure that annoys you? Would you have been ok with automatically scaling the surface without a test because the DM doesn't want to deal with a bunch of dice rolls for an insignificant climb?

If the climb is insignificant then no, generally you don't roll things you could take 10 on. As it is both easy and there is no real risk.



How about if the DM just put in circumstances outside of your control that resulted in an arbitrarily high difficulty such as a sudden windstorm that increases the climb DC by 15?

A climb DC being arbitrarily high is fine, but there should be some way of detecting this before you get started. A climb check that looks much easier than it is is effectively a trap which may potentially have a secondary means of detection like Survival to recognize the potential for sudden winds highr up on the cliff face or Knowledge: Dungeoneering to recognize a brittle kind of stone that may break away or an ideal habitat for a lichen that could make a handhold that looks good from below to be very slippery.


Also, how about NPCs? I have had one player who goes so far as to not let you narrate the effects of the NPCs actions when the players aren't involved, for example declaring the winner of a duel between NPCs.

. . . Ya, that guy sounds like a jerk. As long as your results don't result in ludonarrative dissonance, like if based on what the players know the other guy would win nie times out of ten or better.


First off, if the players don't enjoy my story why the hell are they at the table in the first place? They should just save everyone's time and feelings and leave now regardless of how I choose to introduce the hook.

A lot of people prefer that the rules be followed by default. Following them helps them to enjoy your story and the more rules you unesessarily bend/break the more pulled away they are fom the game/story.


It is just in this case the more beneficial outcome happens to occur on a failure rather than a success and I am glossing over the uninteresting rolls to get there.


It's a matter of player agency or at least an illusion of such. The DM controls a unlimited number of NPC's and inanimate objects, many people feel that for this reason they should be loathe to take away any measure of control over a PC.



The players are spending the winter foraging to survive and living in a cabin in the woods. There is a nearby trading post where the players can resupply and I have an adventure hook planted there. I can decide:
a: Tell the players to roll a survival check every day with a high but not guaranteed chance of success.
b: Use the law of averages and assume they succeed most of the time but will eventually fail. Gloss over the individual rolls and tell them that at one point in the winter they fail.
c: Force the players by giving them an impossibly high test and telling them that the coldest winter in history has killed all life in the region.
d: Tell the players they are in the trading post, to hell with the reasons.

a:Yep, we could do that depends on how nuts and boltsey we play at the table.
b: An eventual failure isn't an issue. You don't need to pass every day because you can produce extra food. It's actually a case of a pendulum swing and figuring out whether the pendulum swinging against you before winter ended is likely would take more than a little math. Rolling out a test week and seeing whether you're on a razor's edge or well ahead would be a decent test that would probably be faster than actually figuring the probabilities.
Aside: I'd like to take a moment to step aside and say that in scenarios like this I sometimes just step back and ask “So, do you as DM want me to do X? I'm getting a vibe so I'm just going to ask, if you don't say yes I'm going to keep trying to do Y and if you want X you're just going to get more and more frustrated so I'm asking now.”
c: That's perfectly fine, but if the winter being that cold isn't part of the next adventure you may be creating a red herring and you need to be aware of that.
d:depends on the tone of the game.


All of these have the exact same amount of railroading and the exact same outcome / respect for the players abilities. But in my mind b is just flat out easier and less intrusive.

No they don't; “a” allows for player agency and in character abilities to suced or fail, “b” assumes that “a” is likely to fail then removes agency, “c” respects ability by presenting an extraordinary rather than ordinary circumstance for the characters to fail, and “d” is neutral in regards to respect/representaion of character ability.



I do not see how:

1: You failed to pick the lock on the main door and thus snuck around the back entrance of the dungeon
2: You succeeded on picking the lock on the back door and have used the rear entrance of the dungeon
3: You find the back door of the dungeon unlocked and enter.

are any different from a "railroading" perspective. All three have an identical amount of player input and end up in the exact same place.

All of those have identical end results, it's arbitrarily making the front door unpickable that makes it railroading. This is practically the definition of railroading. In my experience, if you must railroad it's better to have branches that lead back to the main track than a bunch of branches that abruptly end forcing you to go backwards to return to the main track.



No, I absolutely DO understand that negating player agency is railroading. What I don't understand is why ignoring player agency through a failed dice roll is more railroady than simply negating player agency through a decision.

Do you mean a fair check or check against a DC that is arbitrarily high because the DM says so?

In the former case the player had agency because they could have succeeded. Multiple people have shown how you could craft a functionally similar scenario that wasn't predicated on removing player agency. Trust is a two way street and it's a finite resource; you ca spend it to not be questioned when you make characters autofail at things that seems like they should be possible or you can earn it by trusting players not to run screaming in the opposite direction from your plot hooks.


"You are lost in the forest and take refuge in a strange cavern during a storm" vs. "You have followed the map the old man gave you to a mysterious cave entrance."

IMO “You get lost in the forest and find a cave” is more like a plot harpoon than a plot hook.

[Psyren]

"Plot harpoon." Heh. I may have to steal that.

[OldTrees1]

It's pretty clear that there's plenty of miscommunication and misinterpretation going around, really.

If it was clear, then why did it persist?
If it is only clear in hindsight or from the outside, then why wasn't it clear to the participants?

[Talakeal]

Not cool, getting lost shouldn't be automatic. There are survival checks and whatnot. The woods could be enchanted, but then there should be a check related to that. You need to add an additional stressor if you want PC's to get lost.



Snatching the pouch is automatic if the theif rolls 20, the opposed check is only to detect the theft. Rules for chasing are obscure enough that I expect them to be houseruled, so keeping up without a roll being automatic is pretty ok.



Depends on the game. In some games I would be upset by not getting the appropriate checks and I'd also point out numerous low level spells that could sustain the party if there's any kind of time crunch. In other games where fast forwarding between scenarios is the norm, like a "campaign" that is a series of modules, I'd be fine with it.




If I knew more about horse riding I might have more to say. I will say that if the whole party had horses and I often made a point of mentioning my horse maintenance whenever we make camp, I might take issue with it being “my” horse rather than say the Wizard's. Also, I do know that a horse can be ridden with a shoe missing to the detriment of the horse and some characters might choose that option or be ready with any number of alternative means of travel. On the other hand, the same caveat from above, in some games I'd be much more comfortable with this happening at the start of the session before any dice have been rolled than mid session.




If the climb is insignificant then no, generally you don't roll things you could take 10 on. As it is both easy and there is no real risk.



A climb DC being arbitrarily high is fine, but there should be some way of detecting this before you get started. A climb check that looks much easier than it is is effectively a trap which may potentially have a secondary means of detection like Survival to recognize the potential for sudden winds highr up on the cliff face or Knowledge: Dungeoneering to recognize a brittle kind of stone that may break away or an ideal habitat for a lichen that could make a handhold that looks good from below to be very slippery.



. . . Ya, that guy sounds like a jerk. As long as your results don't result in ludonarrative dissonance, like if based on what the players know the other guy would win nie times out of ten or better.



A lot of people prefer that the rules be followed by default. Following them helps them to enjoy your story and the more rules you unesessarily bend/break the more pulled away they are fom the game/story.



It's a matter of player agency or at least an illusion of such. The DM controls a unlimited number of NPC's and inanimate objects, many people feel that for this reason they should be loathe to take away any measure of control over a PC.



a:Yep, we could do that depends on how nuts and boltsey we play at the table.
b: An eventual failure isn't an issue. You don't need to pass every day because you can produce extra food. It's actually a case of a pendulum swing and figuring out whether the pendulum swinging against you before winter ended is likely would take more than a little math. Rolling out a test week and seeing whether you're on a razor's edge or well ahead would be a decent test that would probably be faster than actually figuring the probabilities.
Aside: I'd like to take a moment to step aside and say that in scenarios like this I sometimes just step back and ask “So, do you as DM want me to do X? I'm getting a vibe so I'm just going to ask, if you don't say yes I'm going to keep trying to do Y and if you want X you're just going to get more and more frustrated so I'm asking now.”
c: That's perfectly fine, but if the winter being that cold isn't part of the next adventure you may be creating a red herring and you need to be aware of that.
d:depends on the tone of the game.



No they don't; “a” allows for player agency and in character abilities to suced or fail, “b” assumes that “a” is likely to fail then removes agency, “c” respects ability by presenting an extraordinary rather than ordinary circumstance for the characters to fail, and “d” is neutral in regards to respect/representaion of character ability.




All of those have identical end results, it's arbitrarily making the front door unpickable that makes it railroading. This is practically the definition of railroading. In my experience, if you must railroad it's better to have branches that lead back to the main track than a bunch of branches that abruptly end forcing you to go backwards to return to the main track.



Do you mean a fair check or check against a DC that is arbitrarily high because the DM says so?

In the former case the player had agency because they could have succeeded. Multiple people have shown how you could craft a functionally similar scenario that wasn't predicated on removing player agency. Trust is a two way street and it's a finite resource; you ca spend it to not be questioned when you make characters autofail at things that seems like they should be possible or you can earn it by trusting players not to run screaming in the opposite direction from your plot hooks.



IMO “You get lost in the forest and find a cave” is more like a plot harpoon than a plot hook.

Again, I am NOT talking about setting the difficulty for a test arbitrarily high or telling a player they aren't allowed to roll or ignoring the results of a roll.

I am purely talking about the narrative I give to lead into the scenario, before actual play begins, when no dice rolls have been called for. I am giving a compelling narrative reason for why the players are in the situation, not dictating how the resolve the situation.

If the players have agreed to run a dungeon crawl then how they get to the dungeon is just so much flavor text, and I am trying to make it evocative and sensible. IF the players are so competent they never fail a test in X skill then I won't use a failure in that skill to set the scene, just like if they are Chaotic Evil psychopaths I won't have them agreeing to go on a heroic quest to save the kingdom.


This whole conversation is really puzzling me. I have played in a lot of dysfunctional groups over the years, and I have literally only seen a player actually get upset by something like this one time, and even then it was over in a few moments and the player admitted they were wrong afterwards. Aside from that one instance I have never seen so much as a player question a Game Master's scenario because it including an element of player failure.

I am also really puzzled why people are saying it is ok not to roll when the difference between success or failure is uninteresting, but ONLY if the DM assumes a 100% success rate when not rolling rather than following a statistically average distribution.



. . . Ya, that guy sounds like a jerk. As long as your results don't result in ludonarrative dissonance, like if based on what the players know the other guy would win nine times out of ten or better.
.

Are you sure you are using that term right? I thought "ludonarrative dissonance" meant a game where the mechanics rewarded behavior that was contrary to the narrative, like in a CRPG where you spend your time ransacking the houses of the villagers you are trying to save because that is the best way to earn gold and items.

Terms aside though, is it really unfair to have an underdog achieve victory against the odds as a plot element?

[Milo v3]

Again, I am NOT talking about setting the difficulty for a test arbitrarily high or telling a player they aren't allowed to roll or ignoring the results of a roll.

I am purely talking about the narrative I give to lead into the scenario, before actual play begins, when no dice rolls have been called for.
But dice rolls were called for in the case you provided, the actions and the player called for dice to be rolled.

[OldTrees1]

But dice rolls were called for in the case you provided, the actions and the player called for dice to be rolled.

Wait. You have the players roll dice before play begins? As in before you give the introduction. Between character generation and the start of the game? Before time starts ticking?

No. I do not think that is what you meant. But that is what your post means in the context of what you replied to.

[Coidzor]

If it was clear, then why did it persist?
If it is only clear in hindsight or from the outside, then why wasn't it clear to the participants?

Well, partially it's because until I saw that post I didn't realize how badly Talakeal was misinterpreting the basis for the criticism he was receiving. It's one thing to argue about what brand of dog food is best, it's quite another thing to be arguing about what brand of dog food is best with someone when they think you're actually arguing about why they should be feeding their cat food.


Wait. You have the players roll dice before play begins? As in before you give the introduction. Between character generation and the start of the game? Before time starts ticking?

No. I do not think that is what you meant. But that is what your post means in the context of what you replied to.

Having play stop and start mid-session does seem to be a bit unusual, and cut-sceneism is not immune to criticism.

Besides, in this case it'd basically have to be after the start of the game, anyway, since the group acquired an unidentified ring of feather falling.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

This whole conversation is really puzzling me. I have played in a lot of dysfunctional groups over the years, and I have literally only seen a player actually get upset by something like this one time, and even then it was over in a few moments and the player admitted they were wrong afterwards. Aside from that one instance I have never seen so much as a player question a Game Master's scenario because it including an element of player failure.

I am also really puzzled why people are saying it is ok not to roll when the difference between success or failure is uninteresting, but ONLY if the DM assumes a 100% success rate when not rolling rather than following a statistically average distribution.

The large number of scenarios presented have probably led to conversation being more about the situations than the principle. May people, myself included, feel that narrative control of the PC's should practically never be taken away from the players.

As a DM, I will never ever describe a PC doing something interesting that is not a direct interpretation of a die roll or a statement of intent by a player and this thread has made it pretty clear that I'm not alone.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with some of the longer “cut scenes” you've posted, in my games they would have had multiple stops for the player to give input, even though there's an obvious choice that I'mm 99% sure the player will take either imeadiatly or after a brief tangent.

Example:
“You find yourself in an empty room with a single closed door and you open the door and you step inside. We're inside our hearts. Now, imaging your pain as a white ball of healing light. That's right, the pain itself is a ball of healing light.”

Same scenario in my game:
“You wake up in an otherwise featureless room with a single door.”

“What do the walls and stuff look like?”

“Like the ones in your room at home, but without the windows or closet door.”

“I knock on the floor.”

“It doesn't sound right, it sounds like the surface is thicker than your floor. The sound is also a bit muffled.”

“I'll try the wall.”

“Pretty much the same, how long do you keep this up?”

“Maybe a minute.”

“kay”

“I'll knock on the door.”

“The door sounds like you'd normally expect it too.”

“I try the knob.”

“It's not locked”

“I carefully open the door.”

“The door opens into a natural tunnel there's a ball of white light about ten feet in front of you.”

“How big is it, can I see past it?”

“It's hard to tell since it's a light. If it has a mass it's floating at around mid chest height which is about the center of the tunnel. You can sides of the tunnel going back a few feet but you can't see through the light. You feel a inkling of something in your mind as if something is trying to contact your mind . . .”

Different strokes for different folks, but this is where I (and presumably some others) are coming from when reacting to some scenarios.


Are you sure you are using that term right? I thought "ludonarrative dissonance" meant a game where the mechanics rewarded behavior that was contrary to the narrative, like in a CRPG where you spend your time ransacking the houses of the villagers you are trying to save because that is the best way to earn gold and items.

Considering that it's a term that's under a decade old that's primarily used on the internet and doesn't refer to a tangible object, I think it's hard to truly use wrong. I don't think I'm stretching the core definition much if at all though. It's like when the main character of a video game repeatedly shrugs off bullets and fights rooms full of enemies, but is then forced to surrender to a single person who gets the drop on them. The game mechanics represent an over the top power fantasy and reward playing like getting shot is a minor annoyance, then the cut scenes present the character as a realistic mortal. I suppose the subject being an NPC rather than a PC might bring it more in line with breaking verisimilitude, but the players actions could be shaped by their expectations.



Terms aside though, is it really unfair to have an underdog achieve victory against the odds as a plot element?

I could have been more clear here. Only if your narration suggests that they were evenly matched or like the mechanical underdog had the advantage all along. This is of course also assuming that the “underdog” didn't have hidden power all along.

[OldTrees1]

Well, partially it's because until I saw that post I didn't realize how badly Talakeal was misinterpreting the basis for the criticism he was receiving. It's one thing to argue about what brand of dog food is best, it's quite another thing to be arguing about what brand of dog food is best with someone when they think you're actually arguing about why they should be feeding their cat food.



Having play stop and start mid-session does seem to be a bit unusual, and cut-sceneism is not immune to criticism.

Besides, in this case it'd basically have to be after the start of the game, anyway, since the group acquired an unidentified ring of feather falling.

If I wanted to run a module/adventure in a group with existing characters, would not the introduction to such a module/adventurer contain some of the narrative tools that are used when starting the first module/adventure?


I truly believe "cut-sceneism" is a misunderstanding/strawman on your part and not the topic at hand. However let's approach it a different way. Consider this better discourse thought exercise:

You are rational and smart. Talakeal is rational and smart. What you perceive Talakeal to be talking about you think is fundamentally flawed. We can reject the possibility that you are mistaken about the flaw you perceive since you are rational and smart. Likewise we can reject the possibility that Talakeal is talking about something that is fundamentally flawed. A plausible theory is that what Talakeal is talking about is not what you are perceiving him to be talking about. Can you imagine a topic Talakeal might be talking about that matches both this premise and the data in the thread so far?

[georgie_leech]

If I wanted to run a module/adventure in a group with existing characters, would not the introduction to such a module/adventurer contain some of the narrative tools that are used when starting the first module/adventure?


I truly believe "cut-sceneism" is a misunderstanding/strawman on your part and not the topic at hand. However let's approach it a different way. Consider this better discourse thought exercise:

You are rational and smart. Talakeal is rational and smart. What you perceive Talakeal to be talking about you think is fundamentally flawed. We can reject the possibility that you are mistaken about the flaw you perceive since you are rational and smart. Likewise we can reject the possibility that Talakeal is talking about something that is fundamentally flawed. A plausible theory is that what Talakeal is talking about is not what you are perceiving him to be talking about. Can you imagine a topic Talakeal might be talking about that matches both this premise and the data in the thread so far?

It's possible for two rational people to come to differing opinions on a subject based on different initial premises. Talakeal values narrative, in-game explanations on how magic items function, so a narrated scene wherein a character is exposed to a situation that activates the item in question, which in turn shows the item's ability, seems wholly justified. The people arguing with him value both player and character agency, apparently over having narratively justified explanations of what magic rings do, and are thus rightly upset at the idea that it's proper DMing to force their characters into a failure with no opportunity for input.

[OldTrees1]

It's possible for two rational people to come to differing opinions on a subject based on different initial premises. Talakeal values narrative, in-game explanations on how magic items function, so a narrated scene wherein a character is exposed to a situation that activates the item in question, which in turn shows the item's ability, seems wholly justified. The people arguing with him value both player and character agency, apparently over having narratively justified explanations of what magic rings do, and are thus rightly upset at the idea that it's proper DMing to force their characters into a failure with no opportunity for input.

You missed the point of the thought exercise and I think you also only understood one side of the argument.

The thought exercise is an exercise in trying to model the other side from their perspective rather than from your own. Merely changing the value estimates is the mild form of such an exercise and is not necessarily sufficient for explaining disagreement riddled with this much misunderstanding.

Perhaps you might want to try the thought exercise out too (especially considering your use of biased tone in your description of your perception of the argument)?

[georgie_leech]

You missed the point of the thought exercise and I think you also only understood one side of the argument.

The thought exercise is an exercise in trying to model the other side from their perspective rather than from your own. Merely changing the value estimates is the mild form of such an exercise and is not necessarily sufficient for explaining disagreement riddled with this much misunderstanding.

Perhaps you might want to try the thought exercise out too (especially considering your use of biased tone in your description of your perception of the argument)?

I apologise for any bias in my tone; my reason for commenting was the educational tone of the "exercise," as if disagreement must be due to misunderstanding, and thus should be corrected, which hits close to home. By "rightly" upset, I meant that from their perspective, they are as justified in their disagreement as Talakeal is in preferring organic discovery of item applications (or other game elements). I'm similar in that regard in fact. I find it more interesting when you get hints or clues as to an item's properties before you get the full identification. When DMing, I try to create scenarios to give out such hints, if possible. At the same time though, I can understand not enjoying an assumed failure on the part of the character. I've had experiences before where DM's have used automatic failure on my part to move the plot along, and when I'm not asked about it in advance, it feels like my character was more of a DM tool than my own... Creation isn't the right word, but I'm drawing a blank on a better one. When I DM, if a plot hook or description needs a character to not succeed at something, I prefer to either get player buy-in in advance, or just let it be the player's choice to get into in the first place. Rather than "While you are exploring the ruins you climb down a ledge and start to slip when..." (Post 110 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18906250&postcount=110)), it might be "You notice a number of unusual carvings/a treasure chest/something high up on a ledge," and since in his example the Wizard would have failed anyway, it costs nothing to let the player try but fail.

[Yahzi]

Really? Throwing a temper tantrum isn't doing anything wrong? :smalltongue:
I was trying to be diplomatic. :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

I apologise for any bias in my tone; my reason for commenting was the educational tone of the "exercise," as if disagreement must be due to misunderstanding, and thus should be corrected, which hits close to home.

1) No need to apologize for the bias. The bias does not affect me, I was merely noting it in case such a noting was useful to you.

2) I see that in my laziness, my thought exercise was not phrased clear enough to avoid that implication. It's intent was "disagreement is evidence for there being miscommunication between distinct valid perspectives". Personally I see this as a further development of "disagreement doesn't mean one side is wrong/needs 'correcting' ". So I must have messed up the phrasing pretty badly to imply the inverse of the foundation. I apologize.



From what I can see of the disagreement. Both sides are arguing on related but distinct topics. Both sides appear justified in their positions relative to the topic they are discussing. However when the response from side A on topic A is heard by side B, side B takes it as if it were on topic B. Thus side A is discussing A vs B' and side B is discussing B vs A'. Both sides are "rightly" upset with what they are hearing since they have justified disagreement with A'/B' from the perspective of B/A respectively. I do not claim that there is a single right side to either of the 2 topics (such a claim would be silly and insulting), however I do think it is easier to discuss if everyone is on the same topic.

PS: One of the reasons I expect this is a 2 topics issue is that I have frequently seen gitp debates plagued by this issue since I returned (no memory of the frequency before) relative to where I had been hanging out in the meantime.

[georgie_leech]

1) No need to apologize for the bias. The bias does not affect me, I was merely noting it in case such a noting was useful to you.

2) I see that in my laziness, my thought exercise was not phrased clear enough to avoid that implication. It's intent was "disagreement is evidence for there being miscommunication between distinct valid perspectives". Personally I see this as a further development of "disagreement doesn't mean one side is wrong/needs 'correcting' ". So I must have messed up the phrasing pretty badly to imply the inverse of the foundation. I apologize.



From what I can see of the disagreement. Both sides are arguing on related but distinct topics. Both sides appear justified in their positions relative to the topic they are discussing. However when the response from side A on topic A is heard by side B, side B takes it as if it were on topic B. Thus side A is discussing A vs B' and side B is discussing B vs A'. Both sides are "rightly" upset with what they are hearing since they have justified disagreement with A'/B' from the perspective of B/A respectively. I do not claim that there is a single right side to either of the 2 topics (such a claim would be silly and insulting), however I do think it is easier to discuss if everyone is on the same topic.

PS: One of the reasons I expect this is a 2 topics issue is that I have frequently seen gitp debates plagued by this issue since I returned (no memory of the frequency before) relative to where I had been hanging out in the meantime.

It's also possible that I'm simply not thinking about it as well as I could be, owing to the fact that I'm up far too late. :smallredface:

In this particular case I see both sides debating about whether presumed/skipping to failure is a reasonable tool for DM's to use. Talakeal is arguing that it is, citing his own experiences/examples where it led to more immersive description or let him create scenarios that were different from "Person X hires you to go to Location Y to do Thing Z." The dissenting opinion is that doing so decreases player agency (which is bad for reasons that are far too long to stick in a short summary), as it makes their choices less important; a sickly 80 years old Grandfather can get lost in the woods just as effectively as an adventurer can, even if the latter parts wouldn't go nearly so well. Which topics do you see being put forward?
Ignoring the bit about the Tal's DM's reaction to being called out on a rules violation. Everything I could say about that has been said.

[Killer Angel]

IMO “You get lost in the forest and find a cave” is more like a plot harpoon than a plot hook.

It can get even better.
It happened to us. We found the cave, but we moved away... and we found a second entrance to the cave. :smalltongue:

[goto124]

For examples of 'you get lost in a forest' and such, it could be that it's barely a sentence and then the narrative moves on to more interesting things, the players hadn't noticed they autofailed something and got distracted by the plot. Might be what Talakeal had meant.

Back to the Ring of Feather Fall. What if the player rolled a 17, and the DM had said, 'Okay, you begin to climb. It's mostly flawless, the climb simple, apart for that one tiny little slip you make. That slip, though harmless, causes the ring on your finger to flare, and you feel light as a feather for a moment.'


“You find yourself in an empty room with a single closed door and you open the door and you step inside. We're inside our hearts. Now, imaging your pain as a white ball of healing light. That's right, the pain itself is a ball of healing light.”

Depends on medium. If it's an IRC or in RL where response is immediate, there's no need to fastforward so much. However, in slower medium such as play-by-post or email, it's acceptable to write:

“You find yourself in an empty room with a single closed door. The walls and stuff look like the ones in your room at home, but without the windows or closet door.

Should you choose to open the door, you will see a natural tunnel that leads to a ball of white light about ten feet in front of you. It's hard to judge its size since it's a light. It's floating at around mid chest height, which is about the center of the tunnel. You can see the sides of the tunnel going back a few feet, but you can't see through the light. You feel a inkling of something in your mind as if someon is trying to contact you telephatically. . .”

Other forms of railroading are problematic though. A DM once had an NPC drop an important item, then the NPC ran away. The PCs picked up the items as per normal, but they also chased after the NPC. So the NPC kept running away, and it became clear the DM didn't want the NPC to be caught, nevermind that the PCs were relentless to catch and interrogate the NPC. The DM didn't want him to be interrogated- it would've solved the mystery very early. In the end, the DM let the PCs catch him, but the NPC gave a reason unrelated to the campaign, and then scrapped the NPC and his part of the plot from the game entirely. Sadly, the 'railroading' damage has already been done. And what if the NPC had been far more important to the plot, such that removing him was not possible?

[Greenish]

Even if the player only fails on a 2 they will still, by the rules, fail once every 20 days. I don't think it is railroading or showing the player as incompetent to simply set on adventure on that 20th day rather than the other 19.Nat 1 isn't auto-fail on skill or ability checks.


It can get even better.
It happened to us. We found the cave, but we moved away... and we found a second entrance to the cave. :smalltongue:Wouldn't that be a plot boomerang?

[Sacrieur]

Other forms of railroading are problematic though. A DM once had an NPC drop an important item, then the NPC ran away. The PCs picked up the items as per normal, but they also chased after the NPC. So the NPC kept running away, and it became clear the DM didn't want the NPC to be caught, nevermind that the PCs were relentless to catch and interrogate the NPC. The DM didn't want him to be interrogated- it would've solved the mystery very early. In the end, the DM let the PCs catch him, but the NPC gave a reason unrelated to the campaign, and then scrapped the NPC and his part of the plot from the game entirely. Sadly, the 'railroading' damage has already been done. And what if the NPC had been far more important to the plot, such that removing him was not possible?

All the more reason I have an "open" policy for my players. Anything they can do, will happen, and so will the consequences of that action. The trick to this is instead of trying to follow an established plot and "fix" it, view it from the perspective of the characters in the story. How would they react in such an event? Just because a henchman spilled secrets doesn't mean that an evil wizard hellbent on taking everything over is going to just roll over and quit. If I were such a wizard what would I do? I'd enchant all my henchmen so they explode in the event they're captured. Won't that be a fun surprise for the PCs who suddenly have to take damage from someone they're trying to get information out of. The kicker is that it's THEIR fault for altering the wizard's way of doing things.

An important part of this philosophy is to not protect your players. I know many DM's like to be nice and let PCs feel like they're special, but you can't let your players feel invincible in this world. It's not Skyrim, it's a real world with real consequences. I thoroughly enjoy it when my players spend thirty minutes debating what would usually be a simple course of action because they're unsure whether or not it would be too dangerous.

I fondly remember my players talking out of character about how they were going to escape from prison, and how their characters were going to work together. When they came to the conclusion of what to do and were about to do it, I rolled perception checks for the two guards next to the cell, then informed them the guards overheard everything. Hilarity ensued as two members of the party were like, "FOR THE RECORD I WAS AGAINST THIS THE WHOLE TIME."

---

The point is to separate the DM view from the character's view in the story. Say they completely ruin the plot you've been building for a week so perfectly, and it was going to be wonderful. Instead of trying to fight them on it, let it happen. Then consider what would happen next. If they kill the big bad within the first five minutes of the game, then who is going to fill the power vacuum? Someone probably just as bad and who will take a lesson from his predecessor's mistake. If you don't have something think about what would be reasonable to happen in such a circumstance. In one instance I had a thief come out of a crowd and take a very noticeably valuable item a PC was showing off. The thief didn't exist until after he was showing it off to other PCs. I had them all roll perception, all failed (bad luck on their part), then whoop item out of his hands. It doesn't have to always happen, I often roll d100s all the time to gauge if something might happen, using percents I've come up with out of thin air.

As long as it's reasonable, players can't complain, because it's something that could happen or would happen in such a circumstance.

[goto124]

I really should've fleshed out my plot a lot more... sigh. I don't think it even counts as a plot- it's more of a puzzle with a paper-thin plot tacked onto it.

The line between 'damn that was awesome' and 'how dare you DM!' is really blurry. Also, apparently I just made a twist that caused one of the PCs to have suddenly much less good reason to stay in the campaign. I'm still waiting to hear from the player, but sometimes I just have no idea what I did wrong.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

IMO “You get lost in the forest and find a cave” is more like a plot harpoon than a plot hook.

It can get even better.
It happened to us. We found the cave, but we moved away... and we found a second entrance to the cave. :smalltongue:

Wouldn't that be a plot boomerang?

The plot harpoon lodges in a player character who fails a Reflex saving throw (DC 10 + Sanity damage dealt.) A harpooned player character moves at only half speed and cannot charge or run. The harpooned player character can move only within the limits that the rope allows (trailing rope is 30 feet long). If the harpooned plyer character attempts to cast a spell to resolve the plot it doesn't work. The harpooned player character can attempt to pull the harpoon from its wound if it has two free minutes, but it deals Sanity damage to the player equal to the Sanity damage dealt to the player character. A character who succeeds on a DC 15 Will check can remove a harpoon without further Sanity damage .


Depends on medium. If it's an IRC or in RL where response is immediate, there's no need to fastforward so much. However, in slower medium such as play-by-post or email, it's acceptable to write:

Why are you bringing up pbp? Has this conversation been about pbp this whole time and I missed it? Otherwise you're actually taking a harder line than I did. “ in slower medium such as play-by-post or email, it's acceptable to write” suggests that it's unacceptable in a tabletop game while I was explaining my preference (and possibly offering insight into the preferences of others) for one end of the player agency spectrum, stated that it was a preferecence and literally said “different strokes for different folks”.

[dascarletm]

What matters is:

If you make a narrative keep the abilities, skills, and personalities of the character in mind. You can ask the player if the narrative works for them. If the player has issue adjust it to work. If the player dislikes the DM saying anything their character does, leave them out of these narratives and just ask them what they do.


For the ring thing specifically:

I think you missed an awesome opportunity to use a mountain-top ledge battlefield with a monster that has telekinesis or awesome blow.:smallbiggrin:

[Barstro]

It happened to us. We found the cave, but we moved away... and we found a second entrance to the cave. :smalltongue:

After exploring the cave, did it still have only one entrance?

To the side topic at hand; I think that a lot of rolls should be made by the DM in secret so that the DM can tell the story. Rolling knowledge can lead to metagaming more than the DM saying "you know from your experiences..." I'd even take a bad DM railroading me to a plot hook (it's better than trying to make a bad DM think on his feet), railroading by a good DM can help the story grow. I really like the example of having the PC slip to learn it's a ring of featherfall. That's more gripping than; "I rolled a 31 after bonuses, just tell me what the ring is".

But, that is just my play style. Those with a more "Players vs. DM" mindset want the transparency.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

After exploring the cave, did it still have only one entrance?

Lol, this reminds me of Coidzor's response “of course” to a game with crit cards also houseruling away confirming crits, because my reflexive response was the same.

This is a textbook example of the quantum phenomenon known as Schrödinger's Dungeon. Schrödinger's Dungeon exists in an uncertain state where multiple cave mouths can either lead to the dungeon or an unremarkable cave until the player characters enter and it is this observation that causes the Dungeon to solidify into one state or another.

Schrödinger's Dungeon is a favorite of stuborn and/or uncreative dm's, but can also be used to help populate “open world” games by letting some of the world to exist in flux.

[dascarletm]

To be fair having to come up with stuff on the fly would be more commonplace for someone who is more creative.

[OldTrees1]

It's also possible that I'm simply not thinking about it as well as I could be, owing to the fact that I'm up far too late. :smallredface:

In this particular case I see both sides debating about whether presumed/skipping to failure is a reasonable tool for DM's to use. Talakeal is arguing that it is, citing his own experiences/examples where it led to more immersive description or let him create scenarios that were different from "Person X hires you to go to Location Y to do Thing Z." The dissenting opinion is that doing so decreases player agency (which is bad for reasons that are far too long to stick in a short summary), as it makes their choices less important; a sickly 80 years old Grandfather can get lost in the woods just as effectively as an adventurer can, even if the latter parts wouldn't go nearly so well. Which topics do you see being put forward?
Ignoring the bit about the Tal's DM's reaction to being called out on a rules violation. Everything I could say about that has been said.

The topics are similar enough that I think the best description is a contrast rather than a summary.
1) DM chosen failure vs Time jump to inevitable failure
2) Any Decrease in Player Agency is harmful vs Player Agency is good prima facie but not affected.

The first difference is what I think splits the topic into 2 topics while the 2nd difference seems to be the resulting argument.

I will give a concrete example of the difference using the inverse.
Situation: PC trying to climb a wall and the player will not stop until successful.
Topic 1: The DM uses the take 20 rules to determine the PC will eventually succeed and jumps to that point since time is not an issue. While Player Agency is good, it is not really affected and the group continues on to the parts they enjoy.
Topic 2: The DM decides the player rolls a 20 on their first climb attempt. Player Agency has decreased since what once was a die roll is now a DM decision. This is upsetting and tarnishes the future play experience.

Now I am neither of the arguing sides and thus there is a real chance I might be misunderstanding 1 or both of them.

[Talakeal]

Nat 1 isn't auto-fail on skill or ability checks.

I didn't say it was. I said the player succeeds on a 2, meaning their modifier is 2 less than the difficulty and thus they have the best possible odds in 3.X without automatically succeeding.

[Killer Angel]

Wouldn't that be a plot boomerang?

With hooks. It's an exotic weapon.


After exploring the cave, did it still have only one entrance?

Yes. :smalltongue:
The good part is that it's now a sort of joke, good for a laugh: "I check if a cave is following us!"

[Flickerdart]

The good part is that it's now a sort of joke, good for a laugh: "I check if a cave is following us!"
You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

[Psyren]

You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

I reroll my character.

[Tindragon]

You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

I begin casting banishment... cover me ya'll!

[Killer Angel]

You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

I sneak silently past it. I dont want to awaken the dread thing.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I begin casting banishment... cover me ya'll!

No one may help you, you must fight the gazeebo alone.

[zergling.exe]

You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.

I've seen this story, but can't for the life of me remember where. Link please?

[Doctor Awkward]

I've seen this story, but can't for the life of me remember where. Link please?

Eric and the Gazebo (http://web.archive.org/web/20080804140516/http://www.dreadgazebo.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8)

[Rowan Wolf]

I usually go with the incorrect ruling/call and wait until the end session and then ask the DM if that is now a house rule and could they be a bit more considerate in announcing changes to basic rule before the game is underway.

On occasion I've lost character due to bad calls/incorrect rulings and I used the DM's response to the aforementioned courtesy as to whether or not I will continue playing in their game.

[Louro]

To the title question I would say: it depends.

Its really hard to know all the rules so I don't see correcting people a problem... it's a must! Even the DM, which can follow or not, depending on style and objectives.

On the other hand I HATE lawyers :P
Well, not lawyers specifically, but the fact to need to stop the game to search for endless rules on endless books... This only hurts the game pace. All this issues should be solved on the fly by the DM and discussed after if needed.

Story over rules.
Action over rules.
Fun over rules.

[killem2]

No you did nothing wrong your DM is being a baby when I'm a DM I'm corrected all the time when other people are the DM we sometimes correct each other it's important to make sure the rules are being followed it's not me a rules lawyer its just pointing out a basic rule now we were discussingsome obscure gray area where there are no clear rules and you have to just gas and pretend what the designers intended for the rules to say that's where you get rules lawyers frosome obscure gray area where there are no clear rules and you have to just guess and pretend what the designers intended for the rules to say that's where you get rules lawyers from.


but pulling up a simple ruling from a very easy to find place in the rulebook is not being a rules lawyer and if IDM doesn't want his players doing that then he needs to learn all the rules by heart I know I don't want to do that and I appreciate it when my players call me on things so I can learn then again I'm not a douchebag

[Talakeal]

I heartily agree, we shouldn't be fighting each other, rather we should unite against the true enemy; the dread Gazebo.