Do you point out when both the DM and the player make a ruling mistake?

[sorcererlover]

If I do it feels like I'm taking over as DM. And correcting the DM always pisses him off. If I don't, we're playing d&d wrong.

What do you guys do?

[grarrrg]

Ask yourself:
How severe is the mistake?
How often does this rule come up?

[Mordaedil]

I don't want to spend the session correcting the DM on rulings, because I'm more interested in keeping the pace up, but I'll also relent if I am corrected by the DM on a thing I misunderstood. Ideally, I will only offer advice when they have half-forgotten the rules for tripping or grappling, and usually it just becomes a big mess because we have one soldier grappling our archer rogue and then the fighter grapples the soldier and then we're wondering why he can't drag him off him etc.

Usually letting the DM fiat win over just avoids a whole heap of troublesome rulings, but if you are sure about the rulings of a spell or a feat, it is often more beneficial if you put it in the form of a question, rather than an accusation.

Instead of "No, the feat doesn't work like that, it works like this" you say "Wait, are you sure? I thought it worked like this." and usually it will prompt the DM to look it up without feeling dumb.

[Kurald Galain]

Usually not.

And if the result of the ruling is to give a boost to one of the newer players, or to a weaker character, or to someone unlucky on the dice for the night, then definitely not; they deserve the break.

[The Kool]

Mordaedil hit the nail on the head. I'll add that you need to consider WHY. If the ruling was to help a player or smooth things along, don't sweat it. If it was just lack of familiarity, then be gentle. A single "Hey, I thought it worked like x?" and if the DM says "maybe but I don't want to slow things down looking it up" or "no I'm pretty sure it's z" then make a note to ask about it after everyone has left (preferably the next day). If the DM gets pissy at you for correcting him then there's a bigger issue here.. If you can let it slide without bothering yourself, then that might make it a nonissue. However, the most likely situation I see is that the inconsistencies don't sit right with you, and whenever you say anything about it the DM doesn't take it well. That's not exactly a healthy dynamic and you should probably talk to the DM about their accepted level of you offering corrections, if they're aware of how they react, and when they want you to speak up or not speak up.

[DeTess]

Instead of "No, the feat doesn't work like that, it works like this" you say "Wait, are you sure? I thought it worked like this." and usually it will prompt the DM to look it up without feeling dumb.

This is an important one to keep in mind when you do correct them.
A good test for whether it's even worth correcting the dm is whether the correction would improve fun for people. For example: the DM is asking for a jump check to cross a 20ft chasm, and doesn't apply penalties for not having a running start and rules that a DC that according to the rules only crosses a 15ft chasm is a success. In such a case, there's little to be gained for pointing the DM to the actual rules for any side of the table. I'd only interject if the DM's ruling has a clear negative effect on a character, or boosts the power of one character over that of the other ones by a clear margin.

[ezekielraiden]

Usually, I just express surprise and that's enough to prompt a book check or a "we'll sort it later." I don't know if it's luck or not, but no DM has ever been particularly ruffled by it.

[Phillyg]

Once the DM rules, there is no mistake. Make your point before he rules, or save your point till after the game.

[Falontani]

My table includes a bunch of rule lawyers (the DM included). So we sometimes go off on an hour long tangent looking at the rule, seeing that either the dm was wrong, the player was wrong, the rule was ambiguous, or best of all, the rule is wrong. Generally we'll tear the rule apart and look at the "Why", we'll argue our sides, and we'll eventually get back into the game. However I will say that the party has gotten to the point that the DM sometimes doesn't want to get in that debate, and the party generally accepts a, "Dming it this way for now, will look into it later." or the best line that I like saying, "As the DM, blah blah blah". Once one of those are said the discussion/debate is quickly shut down until end of session (or at least until next time there is a break in narrative)

[The Kool]

or the best line that I like saying, "As the DM, blah blah blah". Once one of those are said the discussion/debate is quickly shut down until end of session (or at least until next time there is a break in narrative)

I wish that worked on all my players. I have one that will nitpick and cling to something that didn't go the way he expected. Worst part is he chooses fine points of the rules that are frequently ambiguous or go against RAI, and are almost always above the established power level of the table... and doesn't check with me beforehand to make sure it'll work.

[Jack_Simth]

Is the incorrect ruling messing up anyone's fun?
No: Don't sweat it during game time. Bring it up quietly post-game, it's not worth the derailment.
Yes: Bring it up.

In either event, bring it up tactfully. Good advice for that can be seen up thread.

[Biggus]

I wish that worked on all my players. I have one that will nitpick and cling to something that didn't go the way he expected. Worst part is he chooses fine points of the rules that are frequently ambiguous or go against RAI, and are almost always above the established power level of the table... and doesn't check with me beforehand to make sure it'll work.

I tend to let my players know early on that a general rule when I'm DMing is that if there are two ways to interpret something, one of which is game-breakingly powerful and one of which isn't, they can safely assume I'll rule that the latter is correct, even if the wording seem to favour the former slightly more. In other words, if it seems to good to be true, it almost certainly is.

[heavyfuel]

If the DM asks, yes. If he doesn't, no*.

*I don't correct him in that specific moment. Part of the DM's job is to make the game flow, if you're going to interrupt him when he makes a mistake, you're going to be interfering with such job.

During the actual game, the DM's word is final.

If it's a mistake that annoyed me enough that I'm still annoyed by it by the end of the session or during a break, I'll bring it up. Thankfully, the two guys that DM for me have a decent grasp on the rules and often ask me about rules they don't know or are unsure about.

[BWR]

I correct GMs who make rules mistakes. My players correct me.
No biggie.
Sometimes this triggers a discussion about rules, which is annoying but we find it better to get that out of the way so everyone is on board with how things are done. That way an issue is resolved there and then and we rarely have to worry about it again.

What I get annoyed at is people complaining about me not following the rules when they are working off incorrect assumptions. I expect GMs to have some secrets and mechanics that PCs and players don't know about beforehand. That's just part of the game.

[Firechanter]

At our table, the DM is not some kind of dictator with god complex, but simply a "player with special duties".

When whoever is currently DMing isn't sure about a rule, we throw him to the wolves he or she will just say so and ask if anyone knows that rule by heart. If any player can jump in, they explain the applicable rule, problem solved. If the rule is so obscure that nobody knows it off hand, we quickly decide if it's really so critical that we have to look it up. If that's not the case, someone suggests a way to proceed (like "just roll opposing Athletics checks") and we usually agree on that to keep the ball rolling.
If it is critical (e.g. a PC's life depends on it) and nobody knows the answer, then well, the game does grind to a halt but we'd still rather accept that three-minute delay (or whatever) than deal with the consequences of a character dying who deserved to live.

If the DM applies a faulty rule by mistake but in good faith, anyone who knows better may and usually will call them out, and the DM usually happily accepts the correction.

Very rarely has it happened that our current DM used a flawed rule just to make life harder for the players, and usually we'd just shrug, but if it makes no sense at least I will still call him out. Like, on one occasion, the Bad Guy held a hostage at knifepoint as human shield, and I still announced I'd shoot the BG (because I was pretty confident I'd hit anyway). The DM then said this would be handled like Mirror Image, i.e. we roll randomly if I hit the BG or the hostage. This I vetoed in crisp words, because the situation clearly was effectively a simple Target in Grapple situation, and not "guessing which one of several identical figures I should shoot". The DM saw my reasoning and we proceeded.

[KillianHawkeye]

If I don't, we're playing d&d wrong.

There's no "wrong" way to play D&D.

That being said, if I happen to know the rules or can look them up quickly, I'll mention it. But it's up to the DM which rules they want to follow.

[sorcererlover]

There's no "wrong" way to play D&D.

That being said, if I happen to know the rules or can look them up quickly, I'll mention it. But it's up to the DM which rules they want to follow.

The rule in this case is attacks of opportunity. The DM thought you could move around in the threatened area without provoking because you didn't leave the threatened area when, you know, it's not area but square.

[killem2]

As a GM/DM, i appreciate any and all corrections to the rules.

As a player, I generally call out any rules to my DM usually in a private chat. If I feel it is grossly wrong, that it is not just impacting an action but the entire party I may speak up at that time.

My group has always agreed though if we can't agree on a ruling, we come here (giantitp) and post on the raw thread. the answer there is the answer we use.


The rule in this case is attacks of opportunity. The DM thought you could move around in the threatened area without provoking because you didn't leave the threatened area when, you know, it's not area but square.


That's a fairly impacting rule and I would feel it need to be corrected on the spot.


There's no "wrong" way to play D&D.

That being said, if I happen to know the rules or can look them up quickly, I'll mention it. But it's up to the DM which rules they want to follow.

That's an ok way to look at it in theory, but D&D 5E turns me off because of the loose and fast notion of "rules". Rules corrections do not have to be daunting if you just talk about the resolution of them before hand.

[Bphill561]

Yeah, it depends on how big the rule is. If it is something that can wait and won't majorly screw over the party for a session, I wait until after the game to ask questions about the rule. It gives me a chance to look up the rule and then I generally ask "if that rule has been modified with a house rule because I want to make sure I do it right." If it is going to kill one of the player characters, then I mention the rule might work a little differently than it is being implemented. It could be dangerous ground, I have found players in previous games purposely doing things wrong for their advantage. They were not too happy when I asked the DM a question about said rule after the session. Mostly though, it is generally just a mistake and no big deal.

Ha, that one is a sore subject for me. My previous group's DM would constantly change the rules, telling players on the same day different versions of the rule privately, and sometimes completely reworking the entire system on the spot so you were not even playing the same game. The game got so inconsistent (I mean going from a D20 to a Tarot Cards, changing editions and using rules from 3 completely different games, remaking characters during the session to eliminate levels as "levels" were unnecessary game mechanics) that one player got kicked out for not being able to keep up. I got kicked out for asking questions on how my class worked when every ability changed every game. And the third player who was hardly around was given cart blanch to have his abilities work however he wanted them too. I am so glad the current group generally follows the rules.

[Jay R]

Learn how to correct people tactfully, cheerfully, and in a non-judgmental way before you start trying it with anybody in authority -- teacher, boss, DM, etc.

Then apply the following two-step test:
1. Are you likely to succeed?
2. Does the issue matter?

If the answer to either question is "no", then skip it and move on.

[Psyren]

Learn how to correct people tactfully, cheerfully, and in a non-judgmental way before you start trying it with anybody in authority -- teacher, boss, DM, etc.

Then apply the following two-step test:
1. Are you likely to succeed?
2. Does the issue matter?

If the answer to either question is "no", then skip it and move on.

Adding to this excellent advice - you generally want to strive to be seen, not as an annoying rules lawyer, but as sought-after rules guru. If you know the rules very well, your goal should always be for people to enjoy coming to you for help. Chiming in just to say "wrong!" actively works against that.

[ezekielraiden]

Adding to this excellent advice - you generally want to strive to be seen, not as an annoying rules lawyer, but as sought-after rules guru. If you know the rules very well, your goal should always be for people to enjoy coming to you for help. Chiming in just to say "wrong!" actively works against that.

Completely agreed. Providing support, feedback, and tactful advice may end up functionally no different than just saying "wrong!"--both communicate a mistake has occurred. But if the goal is helping others achieve greater understanding, rather than just merely noting error, then the former is far and away more effective than the latter. If you're going to affect people effectively, you need to learn how to speak and act in ways that encourage people to listen, take your words seriously, and truly strive to implement your advice.

Humans are not objects, but they're also not mysterious beings beyond comprehension. Learning your subject is Strategem 1, no matter what task you're doing.

[Quertus]

I correct GMs who make rules mistakes. My players correct me.
No biggie.


At our table, the DM is not some kind of dictator with god complex, but simply a "player with special duties".

When whoever is currently DMing isn't sure about a rule, we throw him to the wolves he or she will just say so and ask if anyone knows that rule by heart. If any player can jump in, they explain the applicable rule, problem solved. If the rule is so obscure that nobody knows it off hand, we quickly decide if it's really so critical that we have to look it up. If that's not the case, someone suggests a way to proceed (like "just roll opposing Athletics checks") and we usually agree on that to keep the ball rolling.
If it is critical (e.g. a PC's life depends on it) and nobody knows the answer, then well, the game does grind to a halt but we'd still rather accept that three-minute delay (or whatever) than deal with the consequences of a character dying who deserved to live.

If the DM applies a faulty rule by mistake but in good faith, anyone who knows better may and usually will call them out, and the DM usually happily accepts the correction.

Pretty much this.

We all have things we don't know, and we all make mistakes. Are you a decent enough human being to admit your limits? Or are you a problem player?

A GM whose ego won't let them be corrected is a huge red flag for someone who needs to be outed anyway.


If I do it feels like I'm taking over as DM. And correcting the DM always pisses him off. If I don't, we're playing d&d wrong.

What do you guys do?


The rule in this case is attacks of opportunity. The DM thought you could move around in the threatened area without provoking because you didn't leave the threatened area when, you know, it's not area but square.

So, your DM is bad at reading rules, and prickly? That's a bad combination in a GM. They probably need to be taught the rules by a competent GM running the game before they step back into the seat (if ever).

[Godskook]

The rule in this case is attacks of opportunity. The DM thought you could move around in the threatened area without provoking because you didn't leave the threatened area when, you know, it's not area but square.

Afaik, this is 5e rules, maybe he's mixing editions?

[Psyren]

The rule in this case is attacks of opportunity. The DM thought you could move around in the threatened area without provoking because you didn't leave the threatened area when, you know, it's not area but square.

Was it a monster avoiding the AoO by using the rule incorrectly, or a player?

If the former, I would be more likely to point it out, because it's more fun to roll dice and swing at enemies than it is not to do that. If the latter, I would only point it out during the session if the player in question was looking for more challenge. Against a newer player struggling to stay alive would definitely not be the time to point that out.

[GrayDeath]

Ina ddition to the good advice given above, I would also say it depends on the follwoing points:

1.: How well do I know the DM? Usually its much less confrontational if a friend hints at "you might be wrong here" than if a stranger does it.

2.: How is the general experience level? If a DM I know KNOWS his stuff does something like that, I will in almost any circumstance assume he is doing it on purpose, and hence for example showing of something important (say a strange ability given a Monster/other bad guy, or changing magical rules or whatnot).
If I know he is relatively new I WILL say something. Because its always better to help avoid msitakes than to hav etrhem impact your game further. Thoguh, again depending on how well I know them, I will vary the way I bring it up (and the timing).

For the specific example: This does for me sound like a edition mixup due to inexperience or a house rule he didnt trell you about. In both cases I would recommend bringing it to his attention. Politely.

[The Kool]

Afaik, this is 5e rules, maybe he's mixing editions?

Yeah it's a 5e rule, but it was also a known house rule for some groups in 3.5. So yeah, sometimes it's not that the DM is wrong, just that he does things differently. It's a very good idea to clarify these things though.

[Alabenson]

As someone who tends to be the resident rules lawyer in whatever group I'm in (to the extent that I'll actually record DM-rulings to review in case a precedent is needed), whether I point out a rule during play mostly depends on 1; how important the rule is at the time and 2; whether pointing out the rule will interfere with the flow of the game. Essentially, if the interpretation of a rule is going to decide whether or not a character lives or dies and/or the game is bogged down anyway over the discussion then I'll chime in. Otherwise, I'll most likely point out the rule at the end of the session for future reference.