Rewards for Catching DM with Incorrect Ruling

[Copper_Dragon]

Brainstorming here.

Situation: DM makes a ruling in-game. Player knows it's incorrect but cares enough about the game not to dive into a mid-session rules argument, and shares the correct rule afterward. DM appreciates the gesture, and wants to give some kind of acknowledgement beyond a simple, "Thank you."

So if a DM wants to give a little, " Sorry I messed up," reward to players who recognized he messed up and handled it with grace, what kinds of things would be appropriate?

My initial thoughts are to grant extra inspiration, or some token amount of bonus xp. But I'm sure there are better ideas out there...

What do you think?

[Xervous]

Inspiration seems appropriate, though be wary of where this incentive can lead.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think any incentive is needed. The DM should most definitely give thanks and correct the mistake, but the DM's a person too. They're not necessarily going to have any greater rules knowledge than the players.

Hell, one of the best RL DMs I had was honestly kinda bad with the rules. He had a basic grasp, enough to keep things going, and then was just really good at improv and weaving together disparate threads. So while I'd be, rather often, correcting small mistakes of his, it wasn't really something that made the game a ton better. It helped keep him consistent, but if he had goofed up on the AoO rules? Game would've kept going totally fine.

[Ganryu]

My personal opinion is its a terrible idea. GM is in charge. He can overwrite any rule. Even when he's wrong, he's right, that's the role of a GM, if he's glad of a missed rule... great!

I don't always agree with my DM, and I am the rule's lawyer half the time in our group. I still recognize he can say 'no', and that constantly bringing up rules is bad for the game, it's something I have to be wary of.

I think giving rewards for bad behavior encourages it.

[nickl_2000]

I'm with JNAProductions here. There doesn't need to be incentive, you go woops, you fix it in the future and you move on with life.

We all cheat accidently, if it has significant impacts (killing someone) you can retcon what happened and move on with life.

[Spo]

My first gut reaction is to not do it. It sets up a ‘gotcha’ atmosphere and turns the players against the dm by trying to find fault with his running the game.

It’s stressful enough trying to run a campaign and be somewhat responsible for the enjoyment of the game already without the players ready to jump on any mistake you make so their pc can have an advantage. The players will be in competition with each other to correct the dm first.

I wouldn’t do it.

[stoutstien]

The fact the player is making the assumption that the ruling was somehow automatically incorrect is a big red flag to me. it is possible to DM made a mistake or they made a ruling that they thought was the most applicable for that situation.

Verification of ruling is something every player should be entitled to but trying to promote players actively tracking every ruling is something best left for systems that aren't ruling based. Furthermore unless the ruling led to an inversible state in the game such as a character death I would be hard-pressed to even waste my time.

I would suggest picking up the mantle of the DM if tracking rulings is something a player enjoys.

[Unoriginal]

Brainstorming here.

Situation: DM makes a ruling in-game. Player knows it's incorrect but cares enough about the game not to dive into a mid-session rules argument, and shares the correct rule afterward. DM appreciates the gesture, and wants to give some kind of acknowledgement beyond a simple, "Thank you."

So if a DM wants to give a little, " Sorry I messed up," reward to players who recognized he messed up and handled it with grace, what kinds of things would be appropriate?

My initial thoughts are to grant extra inspiration, or some token amount of bonus xp. But I'm sure there are better ideas out there...

What do you think?


There is no such thing as an incorrect ruling. What the DM decides the ruling to be is by definition the "correct" ruling.

Also a player who cares about the game, playing with others who also care about the game, should be able to point out what the rule in the book is without it being a big thing, with the DM deciding if they prefer using the rule in the book or their ruling for this instance.

If a player told me after the session that I didn't follow the rules at some point, I would say "thank you for pointing it out, but why didn't you say that back then?" or similar.

In any case, I *strongly* advise to not give in-game rewards for out-of-game actions.

[JNAProductions]

My personal opinion is its a terrible idea. GM is in charge. He can overwrite any rule. Even when he's wrong, he's right, that's the role of a GM, if he's glad of a missed rule... great!

I don't always agree with my DM, and I am the rule's lawyer half the time in our group. I still recognize he can say 'no', and that constantly bringing up rules is bad for the game, it's something I have to be wary of.

I think giving rewards for bad behavior encourages it.

Eh, if a DM says "I'm playing by the book," or even "These are my houserules (with the implication that anything not listed is by the book)," then they can indeed screw up rules.

If it's an INTENTIONAL DECISION, then that's within their purview. But if a blinded foe makes an AoO (without Blindsight or similar) when the DM has explicitly NOT changed the rules on Opportunity Attacks, then they goofed. It happens-if caught immediately, you just tell the DM "Hey, you can't AoO someone you can't see," and you don't finish the attack.

Rulings are fine. Houserules are fine. But the DM can fully break the rules, though usually only by accident.

[Gtdead]

Bragging rights is enough of a reward. Also if it happens enough for it to become a standard practice, personally I'd just leave the table. I have a thing with inconsistent rulings.

[MoiMagnus]

If you want to give something, I'd suggest a drink, some chocolate, or anything of this order. And I'd advise against any bonus given to the PC. It is the player you want to reward for giving you informations you missed/misunderstood, not their character.
[And if you REALLY want to reward the character, inspiration is the reward that makes sense.]

Assuming it is repeated, trust is the correct reward.
What do you do when you trust a player? Well, you can ask them for advice/opinions more often. If they are a creative player, they can help you shape one of the nation. If they are a more "technical" player, you can be more open to the houserules and homebrew content they suggest.

[Unoriginal]

Eh, if a DM says "I'm playing by the book," or even "These are my houserules (with the implication that anything not listed is by the book)," then they can indeed screw up rules.

If it's an INTENTIONAL DECISION, then that's within their purview. But if a blinded foe makes an AoO (without Blindsight or similar) when the DM has explicitly NOT changed the rules on Opportunity Attacks, then they goofed. It happens-if caught immediately, you just tell the DM "Hey, you can't AoO someone you can't see," and you don't finish the attack.

Rulings are fine. Houserules are fine. But the DM can fully break the rules, though usually only by accident.

A DM can make mistakes, and (while I for one am not a fan of that attitude) they can also decide that their mistake is how it'll go this time even after the book's text has been pointed out.

In either case it's why it should be addressed the moment it happens and not after the session.

[Mastikator]

The GM can't make incorrect rulings, he can make bad or unfun or inconsistent rulings, he can make mistakes where he misunderstands how some spell works. But DM rulings trump RAW. I think your reward for being a rules lawyer is your DM taking you aside and saying "stop that, you're not helping".

[JNAProductions]

The GM can't make incorrect rulings, he can make bad or unfun or inconsistent rulings, he can make mistakes where he misunderstands how some spell works. But DM rulings trump RAW. I think your reward for being a rules lawyer is your DM taking you aside and saying "stop that, you're not helping".

Yes, the DM can. If the DM said during session zero "We'll be playing by the book," and then has a blinded foe make an attack of opportunity, that's an incorrect ruling, because there's no ambiguity. The rules are clear-if you can't see your target, can't make an attack of opportunity.

If a player points that out, the appropriate response is "Ah crap, you're right-my bad," and if it happened recently enough, remove any consequences of the attack.

DMs are not infallible. Pretending they are is not good practice.

[Copper_Dragon]

Realizing my mistake with vocabulary here...

What I meant was the actual breaking or ignoring of an established rule. "Ruling" implies applying the rules to (or improvising a rule for) an in-game situation that might not have a clear RAW answer. What I meant, but didn't state clearly (apologies), was a broken/ignored rule, rather than something that is normally up to DM judgement.

I wouldn't want to build a "gotcha" culture at my table. Instead, I'm thinking in terms of a more tangible reward for players who:

-Are knowledgeable enough about the rules to recognize that I made a mistake
-Are respectful enough to let it slide until a point at which pointing it out wouldn't slow the pace of the game

[JNAProductions]

Realizing my mistake with vocabulary here...

What I meant was the actual breaking or ignoring of an established rule. "Ruling" implies applying the rules to (or improvising a rule for) an in-game situation that might not have a clear RAW answer. What I meant, but didn't state clearly (apologies), was a broken/ignored rule, rather than something that is normally up to DM judgement.

I wouldn't want to build a "gotcha" culture at my table. Instead, I'm thinking in terms of a more tangible reward for players who:

-Are knowledgeable enough about the rules to recognize that I made a mistake
-Are respectful enough to let it slide until a point at which pointing it out wouldn't slow the pace of the game

I'll echo MoiMagnus, in that case.

Don't reward the PC-reward the player. If you feel your players wouldn't appreciate candy or something, just give a good thank you.

The point of D&D is to have fun as a group-consistent rules generally help with that, so the player's just making sure that everyone keeps having fun.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, the DM can. If the DM said during session zero "We'll be playing by the book," and then has a blinded foe make an attack of opportunity, that's an incorrect ruling, because there's no ambiguity. The rules are clear-if you can't see your target, can't make an attack of opportunity.


A DM can choose to not play by the book in this current instance. It's not incorrect to say "I know I said we would be playing by the book, but I prefer it that way". Although it can be irksome and will likely drive awaythe players who want an as-close-from-the-books-as-possible approach

A DM can also make mistakes. You can make a ruling by mistake because you forgot the rule that applied in this instance, or misread something. But that doesn't make the new ruling in itself incorrect, it just makes your reasons for making the ruling are based on a faulty premise.

Still I feel like we're more or less in agreement on the principle and just have different definitions of "incorrect".



If a player points that out, the appropriate response is "Ah crap, you're right-my bad," and if it happened recently enough, remove any consequences of the attack.

Or "ah crap, you're right, my bad. but I still think that it should be able to do an Opportunity Attack here because X, so that's my ruling on this situation". Not something I encourage to do at all times, but it's also part of the DM's role.


I'll echo MoiMagnus, in that case.

Don't reward the PC-reward the player. If you feel your players wouldn't appreciate candy or something, just give a good thank you.

The point of D&D is to have fun as a group-consistent rules generally help with that, so the player's just making sure that everyone keeps having fun.

I'll third this.

The same way that an out-of-game problem can't be solved in-game, an out-of-game nice move by the player shouldn't be rewarding the PC in-game.

[HappyDaze]

Candy, cookies, beer. etc. makes a fine player reward. In-game awards are absolutely inappropriate.

[KorvinStarmast]

My personal opinion is its a terrible idea. GM is in charge. He can overwrite any rule. Even when he's wrong, he's right, that's the role of a GM, if he's glad of a missed rule... great! I like your thoughts, and I'd be leary of beginning a 'game within a game' of "gotcha DM!" that will eventually emerge if rewards become a norm.
A Thank You is certainly appropriate.
Also a player who cares about the game, playing with others who also care about the game, should be able to point out what the rule in the book is without it being a big thing, with the DM deciding if they prefer using the rule in the book or their ruling for this instance.
{snip}
In any case, I *strongly* advise to not give in-game rewards for out-of-game actions. Concur with this.

[Mastikator]

Yes, the DM can. If the DM said during session zero "We'll be playing by the book," and then has a blinded foe make an attack of opportunity, that's an incorrect ruling, because there's no ambiguity. The rules are clear-if you can't see your target, can't make an attack of opportunity.

If a player points that out, the appropriate response is "Ah crap, you're right-my bad," and if it happened recently enough, remove any consequences of the attack.

DMs are not infallible. Pretending they are is not good practice.

That'd go under the "mistake" category I'm pretty sure I included and you ignored. If the DM says "in this case this creature CAN make AoO while blind" then he's allowed to do so and that is not an incorrect ruling.

[OldTrees1]

Brainstorming here.

Situation: DM makes a ruling in-game. Player knows it's incorrect but cares enough about the game not to dive into a mid-session rules argument, and shares the correct rule afterward. DM appreciates the gesture, and wants to give some kind of acknowledgement beyond a simple, "Thank you."

So if a DM wants to give a little, " Sorry I messed up," reward to players who recognized he messed up and handled it with grace, what kinds of things would be appropriate?

My initial thoughts are to grant extra inspiration, or some token amount of bonus xp. But I'm sure there are better ideas out there...

What do you think?

If I were the player, I would consider the gratitude enough. Even saying "thank you" was more than enough. However I believe inspiration is a safe reward.

Alternatives:
Everyone in the party is blessed/aid/etc at the start of the next encounter. The benefit is shared, but it is there as public appreciation for the player's maturity.

What is appropriate definitely depends on the group. Maybe ask the group for their suggestions on what they would be comfortable with.

[Amechra]

If it's an INTENTIONAL DECISION, then that's within their purview. But if a blinded foe makes an AoO (without Blindsight or similar) when the DM has explicitly NOT changed the rules on Opportunity Attacks, then they goofed. It happens-if caught immediately, you just tell the DM "Hey, you can't AoO someone you can't see," and you don't finish the attack.

I usually handle this by acting confused and asking for clarification. "Wait, I thought that you couldn't make OAs against someone you can't see? Are we handling that differently?"

[Pex]

DMs can make mistakes. They can be wrong. A good DM fixes that mistake if it grossly affects game play. If it doesn't affect anything serious the good DM acknowledges it and applies the correct way from then on.

A player inquiring about a possible mistake is fine. If he's right, see above what a good DM does. If the DM prefers the mistake answer the good player accepts. A good player does not nit pick everything.

The player doesn't need anything more from the DM other than genuine thanks. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. The DM is not the Lord and Master who may not be questioned, but he does have the authority of final decision.

[Keravath]

DMs can make mistakes. They can be wrong. A good DM fixes that mistake if it grossly affects game play. If it doesn't affect anything serious the good DM acknowledges it and applies the correct way from then on.

A player inquiring about a possible mistake is fine. If he's right, see above what a good DM does. If the DM prefers the mistake answer the good player accepts. A good player does not nit pick everything.

The player doesn't need anything more from the DM other than genuine thanks. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. The DM is not the Lord and Master who may not be questioned, but he does have the authority of final decision.

^ This. :)

Personally, to me, the folks who are saying the DM is never wrong are wrong :). I'm DMing two campaigns at the moment. I think I do a reasonable job. I know the rules pretty well and I still miss things and appreciate it when the players point it out. If it is a misunderstanding where I am making a specific ruling for a specific case that varies from the rules then I will say that and it isn't an issue but if I was just making a mistake I appreciate it being corrected.

Folks who think the DM is a perfect being whose every utterance is gospel and who never make a mistake and players can never open their mouths to express a concern with a ruling during play ... are folks I would never play D&D with.

[Kane0]

DM grabs the next drinks or whatever.

Inspiration should be fine for an in-game reward (thats basically why it exists) but on the other side if that coin the DM probably shouldnt encourage players to become rules lawyers for minor mechanical bonuses lest it become a thorn in his side.

[MrCharlie]

I mean, this is a real potential s-storm for opening up the kind of pedantic nonsense we hear about in passing every once in a while, where it becomes a "My DM is unfair and never listens to me" where the obvious other side is that the complainer is an awful player to DM for, but if a DM ever feels that a player is helping the game then inspiration is fair. I'd gladly go for that as a DM.

[Unoriginal]

^ This. :)

Personally, to me, the folks who are saying the DM is never wrong are wrong :). I'm DMing two campaigns at the moment. I think I do a reasonable job. I know the rules pretty well and I still miss things and appreciate it when the players point it out. If it is a misunderstanding where I am making a specific ruling for a specific case that varies from the rules then I will say that and it isn't an issue but if I was just making a mistake I appreciate it being corrected.

Folks who think the DM is a perfect being whose every utterance is gospel and who never make a mistake and players can never open their mouths to express a concern with a ruling during play ... are folks I would never play D&D with.

Literally no one said that a DM can't be wrong.

What has been said is that a DM's *ruling* cannot be incorrect, because the DM is the one deciding what the ruling is. A ruling can be unfun, unfair, inconsistent, ill-thought, or based on a faulty premise, but if the DM says "I rule that all psionic powers work in an antimagic field", then it is what happens. And as such it cannot be incorrect.

[Dark.Revenant]

I’m a damn dirty rules lawyer, and even I would be uncomfortable taking a reward for correcting the DM. It’s not a good habit, but it’s one I do, because inconsistent rulings bother me.

[patchyman]

There is no such thing as an incorrect ruling. What the DM decides the ruling to be is by definition the "correct" ruling.



To quote an old legal maxim, “the DM’s ruling is not final because it’s correct, it’s correct because it’s final.”

[Chad.e.clark]

Depends on how its handled. One of the DM's I used to play with in AL made questionable calls all the time.

Didn't count crits on attack roll cantrips.

Wouldn't allow a rogue to sneak attack with the AoO.

Those are what comes up off thentop.of my head. In both cases, these happened in Tier 1 games, so grand scheme of things, big whoop. Both times I posted the question on ournlocal AL FB page, both times I got confirmation that the rulings were incorrect, neither time were there any hurt feelings I was made aware of.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the DM's I used to play with in AL made questionable calls all the time.

Didn't count crits on attack roll cantrips. wtf? That's kind of basic stuff.

Wouldn't allow a rogue to sneak attack with the AoO. That's something I had to learn on line in terms of "how to get the most out of the action economy" and I can see someone not thinking that it feels right ....

Those are what comes up off thentop.of my head. In both cases, these happened in Tier 1 games, so grand scheme of things, big whoop. Both times I posted the question on ournlocal AL FB page, both times I got confirmation that the rulings were incorrect, neither time were there any hurt feelings I was made aware of. Nice job. *two thumbs up*
(PS, it's OA in this edition. )

[Keravath]

Depends on how its handled. One of the DM's I used to play with in AL made questionable calls all the time.

Didn't count crits on attack roll cantrips.

Wouldn't allow a rogue to sneak attack with the AoO.

Those are what comes up off the top of my head. In both cases, these happened in Tier 1 games, so grand scheme of things, big whoop. Both times I posted the question on ournlocal AL FB page, both times I got confirmation that the rulings were incorrect, neither time were there any hurt feelings I was made aware of.

The interesting thing is that those aren't examples of rulings. They are examples of breaking the rules as written. Neither of those situations is in anyway ambiguous in the rules. If you were playing AL, the DM was clearly in the wrong and using house rules to run the game and as such could be called on it if anyone was actually bothered by it.

Playing D&D is a cooperative effort between the DM and the players. They work together under a common set of rules. The DM adjudicates those rules. I had one example last night where I was running a mastiff NPC and had it jump over a character assisted by another NPC. RAW? Not really but it seemed like something the dog would attempt since it was trained to defend the NPCs involved and had no room to attack. There were a couple of questions from the players about how the dog did it ... "was it strong enough to have a 10' standing long jump?" ... I just said it took a running start jumped up and off another NPC, made a acrobatics check and went over the PC, who was a gnome who also happened to be invisible and landed on the other side. The players went with it. That is an example of a ruling. When a DM makes a ruling it can be to fit the narrative and may bend the rules.

On the other hand, a DM saying "no crits on attack roll cantrips" ... "no sneak attack on AoO" ... is literally changing the rules that everyone agreed to when they decided to play the game (unless the DM went through itemizing the house rules they use during a session 0).

There is a difference between rulings and rules and a DM can definitely make mistakes, misinterpret rules, or make decisions that break rules. The DM is NOT always right. However, if a DM decides that some aspect of the game will be played a certain way for the current session or makes a ruling like I did with the mastiff and explains to the players that this event occurs even if it might not be completely consistent with rules then the DM is the final arbiter. That is their job ... but it doesn't make what they decided "correct".

[Joe the Rat]

I'm in the camp of "out of game rewards" on this one.

If that's not practical (you're running an online game and your SO said "not mailing out cookies" this year), you need to make it a clear, one-time boon. It would be best as a metagame element - character or story focused, not mechanics.

Of course, you should then monkey paw the crap out of it, to deliver the clear message of "yes, there's a good thing that comes from bug detection, but if you guys go rules lawyery just to try and score more story points, I will make your characters' lives a living hell."