Can the GM declare a rewind or ret-con?

[Talakeal]

During our game this week we were fighting a monster. It attacked me, dropped me to 0 HP, I declared I was down. The monster then proceeded to take the rest of its attacks on the rest of the party, all of the other monsters took their turns, and then my allies took their turns. When initiative count got around to me, I said I was drinking a healing potion and backing off. The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious.
The GM said "Oh, ok then. How about if the boss attacks you for X damage?"
I was confused as heck about what happened, and then said "I guess, I would be dead?"
"Ok, then you are dead."
Still confused, I asked, "Wait, are you asking if its ok if we rewind time back to the boss' last turn and he attacks me twice and kills my character?"
The DM then said that he wasn't aware that he needed my permission, told me never mind, and went back to play as normal. But was very salty for the rest of the day, and several times he and the other players had a laugh at my expense because he would ask the other player's permission before attacking their character.


Confusing anecdote aside, do you think it is within the GM's power to rewind or retcon the game? I know a lot of people say the GM's right to make ruling or to fudge dice is absolute, but I have never had a GM want to actually turn back the game to the previous turn like that except in the case of a big rules mistake or critical misunderstanding on a player's part, and even then it has always been sort of a "whole table" decision.


EDIT:
I originally presented this story in D&D terminology because I thought it would be simpler for the forum audience, but that ended up creating both confusion and bad feelings. It was actually in my own Heart of Darkness system. In this system, you don't go "unconscious" when at 0 HP, but do suffer significant penalties and limitations on your ability to continue acting.

Talking to the GM, what happened from his perspective was that he decided to have the monster be merciful to me and not finish me off, and then when I asked if it was my turn yet he thought I was going to continue attacking the monster and betray his mercy, and that pissed him off as he felt like I was betraying his trust and violating the "gentleman's agreement" not to finish off a downed character.

I apologize for the thread that follows, its a pretty bumpy ride due to the miscommunication in the initial post.

[Keltest]

Sure. I do it all the time. Its usually in the party's favor, because they forget a spell slot or something else important, but we regularly retcon combat when people arent paying attention. It just happens to me less because Im always paying more attention as the DM.

In this case he was kind of a poor sport to kill you with it, but you did basically lie to the DM when you said you were down when you were apparently still conscious and mobile.

[Ionathus]

My simple rule for "DM Fiat" is that I only ever fudge in the players' favor.

If somebody forgot a crucial mechanic that would've kept a PC conscious last turn, I'm much more likely to give them the retcon.

If I forgot about a mechanic and my monster didn't get to do a cool thing last turn because of it, too bad.

I control the entire world. The players only get their little slice of that PC's experience. Why would I bother going back to retcon to introduce another threat against the players? I can always just invent a new threat next turn instead. Feels a little mean-spirited or adversarial on your DM's part.

[Satinavian]

Rewinding when some misunderstanding led to things happening that would not have happened otherwise is something a GM can do. It is somewhat inelegant though and rarely called for.
Clearing up misunderstandings is not the same thing as fudging. Even on tables where fudging is not allowed, rewinding in such a case may be allowed.

Rewinding to specifically kill a PC is arguably pretty bad taste as is making fun of players for a whole session, but, well, that is how the people you play with are.

[BRC]

During our game this week we were fighting a monster. It attacked me, dropped me to 0 HP, I declared I was down. The monster then proceeded to take the rest of its attacks on the rest of the party, all of the other monsters took their turns, and then my allies took their turns. When initiative count got around to me, I said I was drinking a healing potion and backing off. The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious.
The GM said "Oh, ok then. How about if the boss attacks you for X damage?"
I was confused as heck about what happened, and then said "I guess, I would be dead?"
"Ok, then you are dead."
Still confused, I asked, "Wait, are you asking if its ok if we rewind time back to the boss' last turn and he attacks me twice and kills my character?"
The DM then said that he wasn't aware that he needed my permission, told me never mind, and went back to play as normal. But was very salty for the rest of the day, and several times he and the other players had a laugh at my expense because he would ask the other player's permission before attacking their character.

In this case, it seems like the DM is acting under the assumption that the Monster would hit you until you couldn't fight back, which makes sense. DM seemed to assume that you couldn't take actions at 0 HP (I know your game isn't D&D, so I don't know the exact rules there).

Basically "Oh, if you hadn't been taken out of the fight by the first attack (as evidenced by the fact that you were able to take an action to drink a potion), the monster would have hit you again to make sure you stayed down, rather than moving on". Yeah it's rough, but it makes sense. The Monster's INTENT was to take you out of the fight, the only reason it didn't do so initially was because the DM assumed you saying "I'm Down" meant "I'm unconscious".





Confusing anecdote aside, do you think it is within the GM's power to rewind or retcon the game? I know a lot of people say the GM's right to make ruling or to fudge dice is absolute, but I have never had a GM want to actually turn back the game to the previous turn like that except in the case of a big rules mistake or critical misunderstanding on a player's part, and even then it has always been sort of a "whole table" decision.

I'd call this a "Critical Misunderstanding" justifying a retcon. Whether or not a given combatant is in the fight is pretty darn relevant for monster behavior.

A retcon is called for to align the game-state with what should have been, had things been properly understood.

For example, if a PC ending their last turn saying "I throw my axe at the monster", and then another monster acts as if the PC is now unarmed, only for the player to say "Remember, my axe is Returning, it flew back to my hand after I threw it". The DM would be correct in retconning the second monster's actions to account for a still-armed fighter.

[ngilop]

yes.

100% the GM has the ability to do that.


This was a case of semantics; you said you were down, which to the GM meant out of the fight, to you it meant not that and I am still unsure as to what you actually meant. When you said 'i do X action' that is why the the question was asked about you being unconscious. If knowledge miscommunicated or a particular circumstance wasn't known and that would have changed actions from either the players or the monster, then a 'retcon'/'rewind' as you call it is required.

again, in your specific case. the monster you were fighting only went after other players due to the DM under the belief that you were out of the fight at that moment. Giving that you were not out of the fight the monster would have kept attacking you.


side note: this is literally he only time in my entire life I have heard of "I'm down" not meaning you a out of the fight/out of commission. I spent about 13 minutes doing a google search to find other meanings and none that i could find were in conflict with what I would assume a person meant by 'I'm down"

[MoiMagnus]

"Yes but"

First, the GM only has power because the players consent to play at the table. "Because I have the power to do so" is never enough of a reason for the GM to do something. Yes they can do whatever they want, but whether they should is another question.

Second, I'm also in favour of player asking for a rewind or a ret-con when the cause was a misunderstanding/miscommunication between the GM and the players. And if rewind/ret-con is not possible (or not wanted), "fudging the consequences" in favour of the party that was wronged is something I'd expect.
Example of what I call "fudging the consequences": Following some sever miscommunication between the GM and the players, and PC is knock down while they would probably have survived given the full information, then a possible non-rewind solution is for the GM to ensure the survival of the PC despite the odds (so no enemy comes to finish them off, and they don't make death saving throws). Note that while I use the term "fudging", I don't intend it to be made in secret by the GM.


It's a yes because at the tables I want to play in, I'll trust the GM to use that power carefully, and reciprocate by tolerating player mistakes.
But if the GM is more of a "got you!" GM that like to exploit the player's mistakes, I'd be pissed if they used their GM's power to avoid having to suffer from their own mistakes.

[kyoryu]

Confusing anecdote aside, do you think it is within the GM's power to rewind or retcon the game? I know a lot of people say the GM's right to make ruling or to fudge dice is absolute, but I have never had a GM want to actually turn back the game to the previous turn like that except in the case of a big rules mistake or critical misunderstanding on a player's part, and even then it has always been sort of a "whole table" decision.

There's a meta question and answer here.

"Is it okay if the GM/player does X?"
"Yes, if the table is okay with it. If you're not, bring up that you're not okay with it, and if they insist, and it's a deal-breaker for you, then you're not a good fit for the table."

The GM clearly can do that. You don't have to be okay with it. If they insist it's a thing that they're going to do, and it's a deal-breaker for you, then quit. Nothing people in a forum thread are going to say is going to change them.


(Personally I think that pulling a retcon to down a PC is a pretty bad move, but that's of secondary importance to the actual answer, which is what I said above. But there's also the question of how the PC status was communicated.... if the GM was told the PC status in a way that was misleading, I'd be a bit more willing to cut the GM some slack. "Oh, yeah, I'm down and out and dying" when you're actually conscious and capable of some actions could be seen as misleading, and perhaps deliberately so, whether or not it was)

[Talakeal]

side note: this is literally he only time in my entire life I have heard of "I'm down" not meaning you a out of the fight/out of commission. I spent about 13 minutes doing a google search to find other meanings and none that i could find were in conflict with what I would assume a person meant by 'I'm down"

To use a D&D analogy:

In 3E, they had a condition called "disabled" which occured if someone was at exactly zero HP, had the diehard feat, or was under the beast land ferocity spell. The character can act normally, but every time they do, they take further damage.

To use 5E terminology, I am taking death saves but I am still conscious.

I absolutely was "out of the fight", continuing the combat would have been suicide, and I only used my action to stabilize myself and crawl 5' away.

I wonder if the DM would have had the same reaction had one of the other characters stabilized me with a healing spell / potion on their turn...

Like I said, I am still kind of confused by what was going on and why the DM was so salty about it.

[Keltest]

To use a D&D analogy:

In 3E, they had a condition called "disabled" which occured if someone was at exactly zero HP, had the diehard feat, or was under the beast land ferocity spell. The character can act normally, but every time they do, they take further damage.

To use 5E terminology, I am taking death saves but I am still conscious.

I absolutely was "out of the fight", continuing the combat would have been suicide, and I only used my action to stabilize myself and crawl 5' away.

I wonder if the DM would have had the same reaction had one of the other characters stabilized me with a healing spell / potion on their turn...

Like I said, I am still kind of confused by what was going on and why the DM was so salty about it.

Because you werent out of the fight. You elected to retreat and heal yourself. Thats basically definitionally still in the fight. The whole point of those abilities is that you are still in the fight.

[Talakeal]

Because you weren't out of the fight. You elected to retreat and heal yourself. That's basically definitionally still in the fight. The whole point of those abilities is that you are still in the fight.

If you say so.

Do note that I put "out of the fight" in quotation marks and didn't actually use that phrase in person at the time.

[Keltest]

If you say so.

Do note that I put "out of the fight" in quotation marks and didn't actually use that phrase in person at the time.

Sure, but if you said "im down" its the same effect. You implied you were incapacitated when you very much weren't.

[BRC]

To use a D&D analogy:

In 3E, they had a condition called "disabled" which occured if someone was at exactly zero HP, had the diehard feat, or was under the beast land ferocity spell. The character can act normally, but every time they do, they take further damage.

To use 5E terminology, I am taking death saves but I am still conscious.

I absolutely was "out of the fight", continuing the combat would have been suicide, and I only used my action to stabilize myself and crawl 5' away.

I wonder if the DM would have had the same reaction had one of the other characters stabilized me with a healing spell / potion on their turn...

Like I said, I am still kind of confused by what was going on and why the DM was so salty about it.

It's pretty straightforward.

I don't know the exact ruleset, but usually hitting zero hp = "I'm down" = Cannot Take actions.

If you hit zero but some rule means you can still take actions, that's an exception, traditional table etiquette would be that you would call that out.

The DM had the monster hit you once then walk away, which makes sense if the DM assumed your character was unable to take actions (Unless this was some sort of Honorable Combatant that would allow you to withdraw, but my guess is not).


From the DM's perspective, you declared "I'm Down", watched the monster walk away, and then later clarified that by "Down" you meant in this "Dying" state where you can still act. Yes, you chose to just drink a potion and crawl away, but by declaring that you are "Down", the DM reasonably jumped to the most common understanding of what that meant: The character is unconscious and cannot take actions.

[Talakeal]

It's pretty straightforward.

I don't know the exact ruleset, but usually hitting zero hp = "I'm down" = Cannot Take actions.

If you hit zero but some rule means you can still take actions, that's an exception, traditional table etiquette would be that you would call that out.

The DM had the monster hit you once then walk away, which makes sense if the DM assumed your character was unable to take actions (Unless this was some sort of Honorable Combatant that would allow you to withdraw, but my guess is not).


From the DM's perspective, you declared "I'm Down", watched the monster walk away, and then later clarified that by "Down" you meant in this "Dying" state where you can still act. Yes, you chose to just drink a potion and crawl away, but by declaring that you are "Down", the DM reasonably jumped to the most common understanding of what that meant: The character is unconscious and cannot take actions.


Sure, but if you said "I'm down" its the same effect. You implied you were incapacitated when you very much weren't.

If that is the case, the DM was very confused about both my character build and the general rules of the game.*

Generally, when I make a rules goof as the GM, I apologize and ask if the players mind if I do a ret-con, which is what I thought the DM was doing, but simply asking made him super salty for the rest of the session.

Also, the monster didn't "walk away". It had three attacks and was in combat with three players, and took one attack on each of us, as it had been doing for the entire combat up until this point.

*: I don't know if you recall the thread I posted a few months ago about how everyone in the party was going crazy on stacking resolve? Well, in my system anyone can make a resolve roll to act while below zero HP, and literally everyone in our party succeeds on said check on anything but a natural 1.

[Pex]

It can happen a player or DM will forget a Thing on his turn and wants to do it while it is someone else's turn. I'm fine with ret-con from the moment that player's turn ends and about to go to the next player when it's remembered to maybe at most it's a player's turn after the next player's turn ended. Even if it means a monster attacks a PC because the DM forgot its turn, it's fine. If it's been nearly a round of play already it's too late.

I fully support a DM who made an Honest True error that hurt the party a round ago to ret-con it - misunderstood a monster attack, a monster couldn't have done something because of reason.

If the DM just forgot a monster could have done something a round, two rounds ago, no ret-con.

[Bunny Commando]

Being confrontational on a player is certainly in poor taste, but I do believe a GM should have the power to rewind the clock if there was a critical misunderstanding at the table and it does seem there was such misunderstanding at your table. If players disagree on such a call I would certainly ask them to explain to me why they disagree, but at the end of day I believe a GM should be able to follow through their decision if they deem it good for the game even against the wishes of the players (then the players have to decide if they trust the GM and want to keep playing or not).

Also believe that such retcons could be against players, depending on the game the group is playing. E.g. if I'm running a grimdark game of Dark Heresy I believe it is well within my powers to rewind the game so that your character could die or be grievously wounded, much less if I'm running a heroic fantasy game with D&D.

[Wintermoot]

Talakeal

First, it is wrong of the DM and other players to get mad and treat you like dirt for the rest of the game.

Regardless, the only person "to blame" for this is you and the only person "responsible" for this is you.

When you dropped to 0 hp, you said "I'm down." To be clear, the ONLY reasonable way for the DM and other players to take this is "I'm unconscious or dead, but I'm out of the game". No reasonable person would take this as "I'm at 0 hp and continuing to fight would be suicide, so i'm going to crawl away and drink a potion."

Period. End of.

Maybe, a good DM could or should have asked for clarification or made sure you were on the same page, but, frankly, that's above and beyond here. The responsibility for clearly stating what is going on and making sure you are understood is on you first.

You have my sympathy. They were jerks for treating you that way.

But you are still to blame and still responsible.

In the future, I recommend no longer expecting everyone to understand the world the way you seemingly do.

In a combat, when a monster is trying to kill you, it doesn't stop when you are "almost dead" or "almost unconscious". It stops when you are dead and/or unconscious. No monster or enemy would say "oh, well i've knocked him down to the point where he's going to have to crawl away and heal himself, so I'll leave him alone now and go deal with others"

So I would suggest being clear. "Okay, that knocks me to 0 hp. One more hit will render my unconscious or dead." Or something similar, so that everyone understands what you are saying.

Because everyone else at that table. Indeed, I suspect everyone else I've ever played with, if they said "I'm down". they would mean I'm unconscious or I'm dead.

In fact, as I spent the later, large portion of my playing career in 3.5 and pathfinder, I am very used to hearing the difference between "I'm down" versus "I'm at 0 hp"

The whole side tangent of whether or not a DM has the authority, right or ability to rewind to an earlier point in time in the combat is completely irrelevant. I'm not going to engage on that point, because it doesn't matter. It's a smokescreen and misses the point you should take from this yourself.

[Willie the Duck]

IMO, the game is predicated on the working assumption that everyone playing the game is honestly communicating to the best of their ability all things upon which the characters know (so, if the players are deceived by an illusion, the DM can tell the Players what the illusion makes the PCs see, but shouldn't say the PCs see a blue stone when it is in fact red), and any meta-/mechanical information (you might lie about your character's motivation, or lie in character, but not lie about what square your/the character is in this turn). A primary advantage of this assumption is that, when something you realize is nonsensical happens, you can assume that it is specifically because either 1) sensory-deception such as illusion (in which case the non-sensical result is a hint), or 2) a failure in communication. If the established norm is that this type of creature hits enemies until they stop moving, and they stop attacking your character to move on to other concerns, it seems reasonable to assume that this is because of a failure of understanding on their controller's part, and it seems utterly reasonable to me that one should go back and fix such situations (regardless which way it cuts, so long as it is applied consistently both ways).


Yes, but IMO they should only do it in a forward method to keep a PC alive that would have otherwise died. E.g. "Oh, in that case you're at 0 hp unconcious and dying instead of out-right dead."

I wouldn't want it to only apply in my favor. If I tactic-ed poorly or the dice hosed me, I don't want to succeed because the DM misheard me/misunderstood the situation. I'd rather not have it happen at all, but if my character dies in combat, that's part of the game for which I signed up (and, given the frequency of resurrection magic in games like this, often just part of the learning process).

Overall, I agree with Wintermoot -- the DM and players should not have been salty, but the fundamental problem in this scenario was saying a character was 'down' and then being surprised that people reacted how a reasonable person would understand the term.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal

First, it is wrong of the DM and other players to get mad and treat you like dirt for the rest of the game.

Regardless, the only person "to blame" for this is you and the only person "responsible" for this is you.

When you dropped to 0 hp, you said "I'm down." To be clear, the ONLY reasonable way for the DM and other players to take this is "I'm unconscious or dead, but I'm out of the game". No reasonable person would take this as "I'm at 0 hp and continuing to fight would be suicide, so i'm going to crawl away and drink a potion."

Period. End of.

Maybe, a good DM could or should have asked for clarification or made sure you were on the same page, but, frankly, that's above and beyond here. The responsibility for clearly stating what is going on and making sure you are understood is on you first.

You have my sympathy. They were jerks for treating you that way.

But you are still to blame and still responsible.

In the future, I recommend no longer expecting everyone to understand the world the way you seemingly do.

In a combat, when a monster is trying to kill you, it doesn't stop when you are "almost dead" or "almost unconscious". It stops when you are dead and/or unconscious. No monster or enemy would say "oh, well i've knocked him down to the point where he's going to have to crawl away and heal himself, so I'll leave him alone now and go deal with others"

So I would suggest being clear. "Okay, that knocks me to 0 hp. One more hit will render my unconscious or dead." Or something similar, so that everyone understands what you are saying.

Because everyone else at that table. Indeed, I suspect everyone else I've ever played with, if they said "I'm down". they would mean I'm unconscious or I'm dead.

In fact, as I spent the later, large portion of my playing career in 3.5 and pathfinder, I am very used to hearing the difference between "I'm down" versus "I'm at 0 hp"

The whole side tangent of whether or not a DM has the authority, right or ability to rewind to an earlier point in time in the combat is completely irrelevant. I'm not going to engage on that point, because it doesn't matter. It's a smokescreen and misses the point you should take from this yourself.

Nobody in my system goes "unconscious" from damage. That is not how the game works.

Everyone can act while dying if they make a resolve test (which, in our particular party of weirdos, we all make on anything but a natural 1).

I really, really, do not think the DM was having a "3E flashback" and assuming down equals unconscious in a game we have been playing for years.

I would also be kind of suspect of the monster who is in the middle of fighting two other warriors but still stops to analyze the exact condition of an enemy who stopped fighting and dropped to the ground after being hit to tell whether they were injured, stunned, unconscious, or dead. Likewise, its even weirder (and kind of speaks to a GM grudge) that if the monster's goal was to kill us, that he didn't stop to finish off the other players on subsequent turns.


Overall, I agree with Wintermoot -- the DM and players should not have been salty, but the fundamental problem in this scenario was saying a character was 'down' and then being surprised that people reacted how a reasonable person would understand the term.

I guess I am just an unreasonable person then.

If I see a football player break his leg (or even just get tackled) and the announcer says "He goes down!" I don't suddenly question his sanity because the guy is still obviously conscious as he is lying on the ground writing in pain.

To me, hitting zero hit points, dropping to the ground, bleeding to death, and stopping fighting absolutely qualifies as "down" and I wouldn't blink twice if one of my players said it.

(I might ask for clarification though. And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)

[Wintermoot]

Nobody in my system goes "unconscious" from damage. That is not how the game works.

Everyone can act while dying if they make a resolve test (which, in our particular party of weirdos, we all make on anything but a natural 1).

I really, really, do not think the DM was having a "3E flashback" and assuming down equals unconscious in a game we have been playing for years.

I would also be kind of suspect of the monster who is in the middle of fighting two other warriors but still stops to analyze the exact condition of an enemy who stopped fighting and dropped to the ground after being hit to tell whether they were injured, stunned, unconscious, or dead. Likewise, its even weirder (and kind of speaks to a GM grudge) that if the monster's goal was to kill us, that he didn't stop to finish off the other players on subsequent turns.

Alright, I give up. Believe what and how you want to believe. I'm sorry the rest of the players and DM and so many others on this forum and the world disagree with you.

I truly hope you someday have a good gaming experience.

[Talakeal]

Overall, I agree with Wintermoot -- the DM and players should not have been salty, but the fundamental problem in this scenario was saying a character was 'down' and then being surprised that people reacted how a reasonable person would understand the term.

I guess I am just an unreasonable person then.

If I see a football player break his leg (or even just get tackled) and the announcer says "He goes down!" I don't suddenly question his sanity because the guy is still obviously conscious as he is lying on the ground writing in pain.

To me, hitting zero hit points, dropping to the ground, bleeding to death, and stopping fighting absolutely qualifies as "down" and I wouldn't blink twice if one of my players said it.

(I might ask for clarification though. And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)

[Keltest]

Nobody in my system goes "unconscious" from damage. That is not how the game works.

Everyone can act while dying if they make a resolve test (which, in our particular party of weirdos, we all make on anything but a natural 1).

I really, really, do not think the DM was having a "3E flashback" and assuming down equals unconscious in a game we have been playing for years.

I would also be kind of suspect of the monster who is in the middle of fighting two other warriors but still stops to analyze the exact condition of an enemy who stopped fighting and dropped to the ground after being hit to tell whether they were injured, stunned, unconscious, or dead. Likewise, its even weirder (and kind of speaks to a GM grudge) that if the monster's goal was to kill us, that he didn't stop to finish off the other players on subsequent turns.

Ok, so obviously your assumptions are flawed somewhere, because he DID interpret "down" to mean "out of combat." As others have noted, thats basically the only reasonable way to interpret it. So in this case, the flawed assumption is likely on the clarity of your communication.

[Talakeal]

I'm sorry the rest of the players and DM and so many others on this forum and the world disagree with you.

I did not intentionally mislead the DM, and the DM has told me since that this was not his issue. I have no reason to believe that the other players did either, so I have no idea how you possibly could.

My gaming group frequently uses "down" to mean out of HP (or the systems equivalent) and in some of the games we play this is the official jargon, so I really don't think they are confused by it.

It does seem a lot of people on this forum are disagreeing with me, although I feel like a lot of this is just strangers barking on the internet. If, in real life, I was describing a fight where Alice got stabbed, fell to the ground screaming and bleeding, and crawled away to escape as "...and then Alice got stabbed and went down" I don't think the average, reasonable person, would be confused by the story, let alone think I was intentionally trying to deceive them.

[icefractal]

As others have noted, thats basically the only reasonable way to interpret it. I don't agree there - in the system as described, it's not that the character wasn't dying (and literally on the ground), it's that characters with a high resolve can keep acting while they're dying. There doesn't exist a "more down" state other than dead, and IME "down" != "dead" usually.

Also I suspect that the GM in this case enjoys the ability to survive from dying as a player, and would get salty AF if another GM had the monsters ensure their character was 100% dead. Because hypocrisy is like a leitmotif of that group.

[Keltest]

Pout if you like, but this is just a flat out lie.

There is no "disagree" here.

The forum thinks the DM misunderstood me. The other players never factored into it and you are being really presumptive to assume otherwise.

No, the DM flat out told you he misunderstood you. Thats why he asked for clarification. There is no presumption here, its explicitly stated in the opening post.

[Wintermoot]

Pout if you like, but this is just a flat out lie.

There is no "disagree" here.

The forum thinks the DM misunderstood me. The other players never factored into it and you are being really presumptive to assume otherwise.

The vast percentage of the forum things the DM misunderstood you because you were, intentionally or unintentionally, being unclear. You, and you alone, are putting the "blame" for that on the DM. The rest of us recognize it as being on you.

The other players factor into it becuase you, in your first post, said "several times he and the other players had a laugh at my expense" indicating that they were taking the DMs side and not yours.

Again, my "assumption" is based on your unclear communication.

[Cygnia]

Is this the same group that had the cheating player in your last complaint?

[Talakeal]

Is this the same group that had the cheating player in your last complaint?

Yes.

Its funny, this thread is making me want to kick her more than all the cheating combined.

[Cygnia]

Was she the GM who ruled against you?

[Talakeal]

So, I texted the GM.

He said that he doesn't remember exactly what the issue was (...grrr.... inconvenient) but he is sure it wasn't because he thought I was unconscious because "That's just not how Heart of Darkness works."



Was she the GM who ruled against you?

No, but she was "bullying / dog pilling" me. Not sure if this is the right word.

Earlier in the session I was arguing about friendly fire rules with Bob (maybe I will make another thread about it later) and she noticed a typo where I had reversed two modifiers, and then the two of them were mocking me about it for an hour and would not drop it.
Then when I got into it with Brian (the GM) she joined in mocking me over the "permission" thing and would not drop it.

I don't know if she does it with everyone, but anytime someone argues with me (as the GM or not) she immediately jumps in on their side whether or not she knows what she is talking about, and it makes for a very hostile GMing environment.

[Batcathat]

Yes, I think the GM generally should have that power, but it should typically be used vary sparingly. If I had been the GM in this situation, I would probably not have retconned it and hopefully found some in-universe justification for it ("the monster didn't attack because...") but I can see why someone would.


No, but she was "bullying / dog pilling" me. Not sure if this is the right word.

Earlier in the session I was arguing about friendly fire rules with Bob (maybe I will make another thread about it later) and she noticed a typo where I had reversed two modifiers, and then the two of them were mocking me about it for an hour and would not drop it.
Then when I got into it with Brian (the GM) she joined in mocking me over the "permission" thing and would not drop it.

I don't know if she does it with everyone, but anytime someone argues with me (as the GM or not) she immediately jumps in on their side whether or not she knows what she is talking about, and it makes for a very hostile GMing environment.

As with a lot of your threads, I think the issue is less the specific problem at hand and more that you seem to play with some genuinely unpleasant people. I love arguing and I'm certainly not above teasing my friends if they screw up (some would say it's my primary form of humour), but someone like this doesn't seem like someone I would want within a mile of a game I'm in.

[Willie the Duck]

I guess I am just an unreasonable person then.
I did not say that. You can be a reasonable person too. Reasonable people can disagree. However, that will not have made their interpretation unreasonable. You seem surprised and/or offput that they are interpreting it as they do, and that I don't understand, since their interpretation lines up pretty well with a common colloquial interpretation of 'down.' {edit: this was cross-posted with Talakeal clarifying that the DM stated that wasn't the reason. I'm not editing this post to preserve what I thought when writing it, but if we find out why the DM ruled as they did, I'll address that separately}


If I see a football player break his leg (or even just get tackled) and the announcer says "He goes down!" I don't suddenly question his sanity because the guy is still obviously conscious as he is lying on the ground writing in pain.
Announcers don't get to make calls in football, but let's say that refs agreed. In that case, he is down for the count within the context of what he is doing. If he went down (and someone tasked with declaring it did so), the other team started spitting out their mouth guards and grabbing water, and then he sprang back up and started racing down the field and scored, the other team would be justified in feeling that they had been mislead. This is how sports like football or boxing develop highly technical terms for 'fallen down thoroughly enough that normal play stops.'

Regardless, yes, I'm sure we can find any number of alternate uses of the term 'down' (someone was tripped, they are on a lower level, they are in Australia), but I don't think it changes whether the DM was reasonable in their colloquial understanding in this context. Within context, it seems like it meant 'out of commission for the foreseeable future.'

Now, what I'm now learning about your game system is that that really isn't a thing, and everyone can act at while in any not-dead state. That's interesting, but I don't think it helps the situation. It just means any enemy that've lived their whole life in this world should know that (or whatever that game rule abstraction corresponds with, in-fiction) and keep attacking downed enemies until they are dead.


To me, hitting zero hit points, dropping to the ground, bleeding to death, and stopping fighting absolutely qualifies as "down" and I wouldn't blink twice if one of my players said it.
I think everyone agrees with that. The distinction might be what qualifies as 'stopping fighting.' If turning your back on an opponent is foolhardly because they might be about to spring back up and start fighting, that doesn't speak to me as either being down or having stopped fighting (at least any more than a cleric who spends a round casting cures instead of actively attacking has stopped fighting). Certainly not in a way that would indicate that an opposing creature should move on from them and stop trying to make then truly stop fighting.


(I might ask for clarification though. And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)
Right, so can you see from where your DM is coming? Both you and they (as DMs) adjudicated action based on an incorrect understanding of the situation based on player self-report.

[Talakeal]

Right, so can you see from where your DM is coming? Both you and they (as DMs) adjudicated action based on an incorrect understanding of the situation based on player self-report.

Notice in this case I asked for clarification and the player doubled down on the obfuscating language though. If he had asked me what I had meant by down, I would have elaborated.

Again though, I really don't think that the DM being confused and thinking "down = KO" is what happened here.

[Wintermoot]

The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious..


So, I texted the GM.

He said that he doesn't remember exactly what the issue was (...grrr.... inconvenient) but he is sure it wasn't because he thought I was unconscious because "That's just not how Heart of Darkness works.".

Interesting disconnect between your own posts.

[Keltest]

The GM said "I thought you were unconscious?

This would seem to strongly indicate that the GM thought you were unconscious.

[kyoryu]

I guess I am just an unreasonable person then.

I don't think so. I do think you have a great amount of difficulty in really considering the viewpoint of others, based on years of your threads.

At the end of the day, this is basically what happened:

1. You intended to communicate that your character was severely injured, unable to meaningfully contribute to combat, but not actually dead or unconscious.
2. You communicated this by saying "I'm down".
3. The GM interpreted this as meaning you were unconscious.
4. The GM acted on this interpretation.
5. When you proceeded to act, the GM realized that their interpretation was incorrect, and adjusted their declared action to what it would have been if they had understood your actual state.

Regardless of anything else, there was clearly a miscommunication. This is not hypothesis. It is evident in the facts - the only thing that is assumed here is step 3, and that is made obvious by the events in step 5.

Clear communication is everyone's job, but the first responsibility is on the person communicating.

The forum has, as a whole, been clear that they find the GM's interpretation reasonable. That does not mean that you were unreasonable or deliberately misleading. It does mean that, in the future, you should be aware that a large number of people interpret "I'm down", in the context of an RPG, as "I'm unconscious or otherwise unable to act". And if you wish to avoid miscommunication, you should be clear when using that term in other ways.

This is not a value judgement. It is not a matter of Talakeal being bad or wrong. It is merely a matter of being aware of a term that is commonly used in a particular way, and as such you should be precise if you wish to avoid miscommunications


If I see a football player break his leg (or even just get tackled) and the announcer says "He goes down!" I don't suddenly question his sanity because the guy is still obviously conscious as he is lying on the ground writing in pain.

1. RPGs are not football. People dying or being knocked completely out in football is not a common occurrence. it is in RPGs.
2. In your scenario, you have the advantage of actually seeing the player. You do not have that advantage in an RPG - all the GM knows is what you tell them, unless they're auditing your character sheet (and it's unlikely that they are).


To me, hitting zero hit points, dropping to the ground, bleeding to death, and stopping fighting absolutely qualifies as "down" and I wouldn't blink twice if one of my players said it.

Great. And yet, others interpret it differently. Who is "correct" is less important than recognizing that there is a common, but different interpretation.


(I might ask for clarification though.

Yes, a good idea. It's not always obvious to the listener that clarification is needed, however. That usually happens (as did in your case) when they receive new information that invalidates previous assumptions.


And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)

Actually a good example of precision. "Out out" can mean different things. "Are you out of ammo in your weapon, and also out of reloads?" is far more precise.

[Rynjin]

The vast percentage of the forum

It's you and like 3 other people.

This forum is small but not that small.

[Talakeal]

This would seem to strongly indicate that the GM thought you were unconscious.


Interesting disconnect between your own posts.


Fudge. Yeah. Ok, I see why you are upset. My bad.

My translation got away with me. Apologies.

I was using 3.5 language because the forum is used to it and I didn't want to drive people away with a mechanical lecture.


If I had realized the forum would fixate on the story and finding blame in the specific case of rather than discussing the general principal of GMs retconning, I would have been much more precise with my language.


In Heart of Darkness the correct terms are "Dying" and "Disabled" with unconscious being a separate condition.

The equivalent terms in Dungeons and Dragons (3E) are "Disabled" and "Unconscious".

As I said, I have no idea what the GM was actually thinking (and apparently he has memory holed the entire incident).


When I created the thread, I thought the GM asking "permission" to retroactively kill of a player was the crux of the thread, not the precise definition of "down".


Actually a good example of precision. "Out out" can mean different things. "Are you out of ammo in your weapon, and also out of reloads?" is far more precise.

I don't know. He said he couldn't shoot because he was out of ammo, I asked for clarification, and he said completely out. Not sure why you would tell someone you couldn't shoot when commanded to because you were only figuratively out of ammo.

[False God]

Sure, when there is a reasonable misunderstanding about the events and rewinding will improve the game in some manner.

Sounds like your DM was unhappy you were dead for some reason and wanted to a jerk.

[Willie the Duck]

Notice in this case I asked for clarification and the player doubled down on the obfuscating language though. If he had asked me what I had meant by down, I would have elaborated.

Just to point out, in which case the enemy still would have attacked your character and killed them.

Anyways, yes I noticed, I just don't see how it changes anything. In the case of your player -- yeah, it sure sounds like deliberate deception (this is why I think any retcon rules should be applied universally, neutrally, and cutting both ways). Your situation as the player -- leaving aside (for the moment) that you don't think it was DM confusion over "down," does them not asking clarification change whether the retcon is appropriate? The retcon exists to fix actions taken under false assumptions with no regard to who (if anyone) is at fault for the communication issue. It isn't being issued punitively. No one is denying that the situation would have been simplified if they had clarified what you meant, but that doesn't really have bearing on whether the retcon was warranted.


Again though, I really don't think that the DM being confused and thinking "down = KO" is what happened here.
Understood. Well, that is certainly the assumption I and I think most people made when reading the Original Post, so if it isn't well then take what was said with that misunderstanding in consideration. If you're right, though, we really don't have a lot to go on. With more understanding of the game system, it really doesn't make sense that they would have left before your character was dead at all.

This leaves us in the same situation as is common with the advice threads for your game group -- it all sounds like madness, and we don't understand how the game can consistently function, much less be so consistently hostile to you as both player and DM, and it sounds positively horrific and I advocate that you find another group.

[Satinavian]

If I had realized the forum would fixate on the story and finding blame in the specific case of rather than discussing the general principal of GMs retconning, I would have been much more precise with my language.Well, seems there is not much disagreement about the ability of GMs to retcon in case of misunderstanding. That is why this part of the discussion broke down pretty soon.

[icefractal]

I don't know if she does it with everyone, but anytime someone argues with me (as the GM or not) she immediately jumps in on their side whether or not she knows what she is talking about, and it makes for a very hostile GMing environment.[speculation] Because she's noticed that the group 'culture' is "It's always Talakeal's fault" and figures that by joining in she can build rapport with the others.

[Talakeal]

[speculation] Because she's noticed that the group 'culture' is "It's always Talakeal's fault" and figures that by joining in she can build rapport with the others.

I think its far more likely that she does it to everyone and I am simply not paying attention when I am not the target. But, that is a possibility.


Well, seems there is not much disagreement about the ability of GMs to retcon in case of misunderstanding. That is why this part of the discussion broke down pretty soon.

Does this happen in your games?

Do players not get upset?

Where do you draw the line for misunderstanding vs. mistakes?

I think there is a lot to discuss here personally.


Just to point out, in which case the enemy still would have attacked your character and killed them.

Understood. Well, that is certainly the assumption I and I think most people made when reading the Original Post, so if it isn't well then take what was said with that misunderstanding in consideration. If you're right, though, we really don't have a lot to go on. With more understanding of the game system, it really doesn't make sense that they would have left before your character was dead at all.

This leaves us in the same situation as is common with the advice threads for your game group -- it all sounds like madness, and we don't understand how the game can consistently function, much less be so consistently hostile to you as both player and DM, and it sounds positively horrific and I advocate that you find another group.

Yeah, it was a very bizarre situation. I was totally confused as to what was going on, and that's why I asked the DM if he was asking me if it was ok to ret-con it, which, apparently, saved my characters life at the expense of being the butt of the jokes for the rest of the day.

That being said though; it is still really weird. We have downed characters all the time and nobody goes to execute them as a matter of course; in that very fight there were four other downed PCs, and I have no idea why the DM would ignore living and fighting PCs to finish me off in that one specific instance and never again. That really seems like vengeful DMing.

[Zuras]

If I see a football player break his leg (or even just get tackled) and the announcer says "He goes down!" I don't suddenly question his sanity because the guy is still obviously conscious as he is lying on the ground writing in pain.

To me, hitting zero hit points, dropping to the ground, bleeding to death, and stopping fighting absolutely qualifies as "down" and I wouldn't blink twice if one of my players said it.

(I might ask for clarification though. And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)

Your football analogy doesn’t really work. If a football player is “down”, then by rule the play is dead, and they can’t advance the ball or anything else. Similarly, most people (basically anyone mostly familiar with 5e D&D or Pathfinder) will interpret “down” in an RPG as literally “down” and no longer able to act without external intervention. To continue the football analogies, the DM thought you raised your hand for a fair catch, then took off running.

Personally, if I were DMing I would have simply disallowed you taking any actions on your next turn, since if you tell me you’re down, that’s what happened, just like if you tell me you grab the cursed idol or say you press the big red button that says “do not touch”.

You clearly had a miscommunication with the DM there, but given (as described) you were the one announcing “I’m down” rather than in response to the DM asking you, I can see why the DM was annoyed. They shouldn’t have picked on you the rest of the session, of course, but it seems like your group is really bad at resolving conflicts in general, so I’m not shocked they responded with passive-aggressive douchebaggery.

[gbaji]

I think the point is that we can only respond based on what you yourself post. We don't know the details of the game system you are using, but presumably you and your GM do. Hence, the confusion when you presented this exchange:


During our game this week we were fighting a monster. It attacked me, dropped me to 0 HP, I declared I was down. The monster then proceeded to take the rest of its attacks on the rest of the party, all of the other monsters took their turns, and then my allies took their turns. When initiative count got around to me, I said I was drinking a healing potion and backing off. The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious.

This strongly suggests that the GM thought that when you "declared you were down", that this meant that you were unable to drink a potion and heal yourself. Otherwise he would not have responded the way you posted that he responded. Now maybe he was wrong. Maybe you miswrote it. Regardless, this is what everyone else has available to post about. And it certainly looks like the GM thought you were saying that you were no longer able to do anything (including heal yourself), and that the GM was being a "nice and not killer" GM and directed the rest of the attacks for the rest of the round at other characters so as not to kill your otherwise helpless self.

Then you took initiative the next round, drank a potion and healed yourself and the GM was like "Um... What?"



The GM said "Oh, ok then. How about if the boss attacks you for X damage?"
I was confused as heck about what happened, and then said "I guess, I would be dead?"
"Ok, then you are dead."

This is code for "if the monster had known you were still capable of acting, it would have used an attack to finish you off".

Yeah. I would not retcon something like this as a GM, but I would be extremely annoyed if a player falsely reported their character's status to me in the middle of a combat, I took pity on them, decided not to kill off their character when they absolutely could have, only to have them pop back up the next round basically going "Sike! Now I'm back baby!".


Confusing anecdote aside, do you think it is within the GM's power to rewind or retcon the game? I know a lot of people say the GM's right to make ruling or to fudge dice is absolute, but I have never had a GM want to actually turn back the game to the previous turn like that except in the case of a big rules mistake or critical misunderstanding on a player's part, and even then it has always been sort of a "whole table" decision.

I can't speak to the GMs personalty, or any details other than what you've posted, but this sounds very strongly like the GM felt that you had mislead him about the status of your character, which lead him to have his monsters take different actions than they realistically would have, and thus wasn't retconning "just to kill you", but because he had his NPCs acting on incorrect information.

If a player in my game said "I failed my sneaky magic to get to the macguffin", and as a result I had the NPCs focusing on other PCs who were fighting their way to the macguffin, and the next round that player said "Ok. I'm grabbing the macguffin", and when I ask "wait. I thought you said you failed to use your sneaky magic to get to it", only to have you say "Oh, but failing that roll still allows me to get to it, just not sneakily. The NPCs could see me, and attack me, but they didn't because you didn't have them do anything". I'd be pretty darn furious with that player IMO.

That's basically what you did (or at least appear to have). You told the GM something that made him think that your capabilities for the next round were X, when they were actually Y. And he had his NPCs specifically take different actions based on that false assumption. Again, fair or not, misunderstanding or not, what you wrote strongly suggests that this and only this was the motivation for wanting to retcon the rounds actions.

Is this a case of the GM not knowing the game rules as well as you do? That can cause lots of problems in a game IMO.

[Talakeal]

Your football analogy doesn’t really work. If a football player is “down”, then by rule the play is dead, and they can’t advance the ball or anything else. Similarly, most people (basically anyone mostly familiar with 5e D&D or Pathfinder) will interpret “down” in an RPG as literally “down” and no longer able to act without external intervention. To continue the football analogies, the DM thought you raised your hand for a fair catch, then took off running.

Personally, if I were DMing I would have simply disallowed you taking any actions on your next turn, since if you tell me you’re down, that’s what happened, just like if you tell me you grab the cursed idol or say you press the big red button that says “do not touch”.

You clearly had a miscommunication with the DM there, but given (as described) you were the one announcing “I’m down” rather than in response to the DM asking you, I can see why the DM was annoyed. They shouldn’t have picked on you the rest of the session, of course, but it seems like your group is really bad at resolving conflicts in general, so I’m not shocked they responded with passive-aggressive douchebaggery.

It's funny, people talk about how horrible an environment my group is, but this sounds like some of the most hostile GMing I have ever heard of and I would never play at your table.

It's not fun to play "jackass genie" with the GM. If you respond to a player making a statement that is straightforward and grammatically correct because you can interpret the words differently, you are a hostile GM, period.

Also, let me guess that this only goes one way, right? Like, if I say "Whelp, I'm dead" in response to being threatened by the BBEG, my character automatically dies for no reason, but if I say "I'm gonna kill him," in response to the BBEG, I would still have to follow the normal system of attack rolls and HP and whatnot, right?

[Captain Cap]

If you respond to a player making a statement that is straightforward and grammatically correct because you can interpret the words differently, you are a hostile GM, period.
A statement can't be both straightforward and open to different interpretations. Since it has been established that your statement is apparently open to different interpretations, it can't really be that straightforward.

Now, drinking potions aside, was your character still capable of performing offensive actions at 0 HP? If no, then I can see how different interpretations may have innocently clashed together. If yes, then your character wasn't "down" in any meaningful way, so your statement could have reasonably been perceived as somewhat dishonest.

[Talakeal]

A statement can't be both straightforward and open to different interpretations. Since it has been established that your statement is apparently open to different interpretations, it can't really be that straightforward.

I don't agree there. There are plenty of homophones or words with multiple meanings.

For example, if a demon says he is going to steal your soul, it is technically possible that he is talking about ripping the bottoms off of your shoes, but not likely.

But I don't see why you would jump to assuming the player was lying and making up penalties about it rather than just asking for clarification.


Now, drinking potions aside, was your character still capable of performing offensive actions at 0 HP? If no, then I can see how different interpretations may have innocently clashed together. If yes, then your character wasn't "down" in any meaningful way, so your statement could have reasonably been perceived as somewhat dishonest.

Every character in the game is capable of acting while dying if they pass a resolve check.

Now, doing anything other than drinking a potion or otherwise healing yourself would have been (literally) terminally stupid as you take damage each time you act while dying and I didn't have any HP to spare, but it was technically possible.

[gbaji]

Every character in the game is capable of acting while dying if they pass a resolve check.

Clearly them, the GM either didn't know this, or thought that your statement meant you had failed a resolve check.

[Talakeal]

Clearly them, the GM either didn't know this, or thought that your statement meant you had failed a resolve check.

Our party *can't* fail resolve checks. And besides, I hadn't gotten to the point where I would make a resolve check yet.


Honestly, the DM's version of the story is a lot more insane than mine. He claims that the entire party was down at this point, but by asking if it was my turn yet, in his mind that meant I was "still a threat" so instead of evenly attacking all three characters, he retroactively decided to focus all three attacks on me the previous turn to eliminate the threat. He would have likewise, in his version, retroactively focused on any downed character who asked if it was their turn yet regardless of who it was or what they planned on doing on their turn.

[Captain Cap]

I don't agree there. There are plenty of homophones or words with multiple meanings.
Then the context is usually enough to clear the ambiguity. In your case it clearly wasn't enough.


But I don't see why you would jump to assuming the player was lying and making up penalties about it rather than just asking for clarification.
Once the misinterpretation has happened it's quite late to ask for clarification: why would someone ask for clarification if they think they understood correctly?
At that point one either doesn't do anything beyond acknowledging it and making sure it won't happen again, or attempts to correct the outcome of the misinterpretation, which may very well be a retcon or the application of a penalty to balance out the unintended advantage given.

[gbaji]

Our party *can't* fail resolve checks. And besides, I hadn't gotten to the point where I would make a resolve check yet.

That's not the point. Clearly the GM was surprised when you stated you were going to drink a potion the next turn and believed that whatever condition your character was in prevented that from being a possibility.

This is not about the terminology, or the rules in effect, or the skill levels of the party. This is about what the GM thought your statement meant, and what you said it meant the next round.

He clearly believed that you were unable to drink a potion the next round. Full stop.
You drank a potion as your action the next round. Full stop.

Ergo, there must have been some miscommunication as to the status of your character on the previous round and/or what that meant in terms of your characters ability to take any specific action on this round. Otherwise, the GM would not have been surprised that you could take "drink a potion" as an action, and said "I thought you were unconscious". He clearly believed that the status of your character meant you could not drink a potion.

Arguing about what the game rules actually allow is irrelevant. This is about what the GM thought your character could do as a result of the damage you took the previous round and your stated condition as a result of that damage. He clearly believed that your character should not have been able to drink a potion, or he would not have been surprised when you stated "I drink a potion" as your action the next round. Right?

Everything else is irrelevant.

[icefractal]

And it certainly looks like the GM thought you were saying that you were no longer able to do anything (including heal yourself), and that the GM was being a "nice and not killer" GM and directed the rest of the attacks for the rest of the round at other characters so as not to kill your otherwise helpless self.
In the system as described, which the GM in a later conversation says he understood, the above is not possible.

The only thing that would have prevented Talakeal's character from acting (at least as a result of simply taking damage) is being completely dead. So the only reason for the GM to desire a retcon is because he wanted to have the monster kill the character, and thought (because of the miscommunication) that this had already occurred. There was no "being nice" involved.

Now is it possible that the GM had a brain fart, thought (at that moment) that the dying state worked like D&D, *did* mean to incapacitate rather than kill, and then later lied about knowing how the system worked in order to avoid embarrassment? Yes. But at this point we're way off into hypothetical land, and there are plenty of other equally likely explanations. Given what I've heard of this group, "he thought it would be funny to kill off Talakeal's character specifically" isn't far-fetched at all.

[Cygnia]

Again, I need to ask: Do you consider any of these people you play with as friends? Because every thread you start seems to involve toxic people who are Out To Get You in some fashion.

[TurboGhast]

Yes, I think the GM generally should have that power, but it should typically be used vary sparingly. If I had been the GM in this situation, I would probably not have retconned it and hopefully found some in-universe justification for it ("the monster didn't attack because...") but I can see why someone would.

Agreed. Retcons and rewinds aren't elegant tools, so they should be saved for when they're truly necessary. Not using a retcon here could've easily led to a cool moment where the monster's surprised that PC's still alive, where the retcon would be a bump in the game's flow even if the monster merely kicked the 0 HP PC's body away or something.

[Talakeal]

Again, I need to ask: Do you consider any of these people you play with as friends? Because every thread you start seems to involve toxic people who are Out To Get You in some fashion.

I really, really don't.

This thread may be kind of getting me worked up at a strawman version of Brian, but at this point I really want to tell Brian I don't trust him enough to DM anymore and I don't trust the new girl at my table at all.


Then the context is usually enough to clear the ambiguity. In your case it clearly wasn't enough.

Once the misinterpretation has happened it's quite late to ask for clarification: why would someone ask for clarification if they think they understood correctly?

At that point one either doesn't do anything beyond acknowledging it and making sure it won't happen again, or attempts to correct the outcome of the misinterpretation, which may very well be a retcon or the application of a penalty to balance out the unintended advantage given.

Here's the thing though, making up a penalty is, as far as I am concerned, just flat out cheating.

Especially in this case when I wasn't even talking to the GM, but to my fellow players, and could have simply kept my mouth shut and said nothing at all.


That's not the point. Clearly the GM was surprised when you stated you were going to drink a potion the next turn and believed that whatever condition your character was in prevented that from being a possibility.

This is not about the terminology, or the rules in effect, or the skill levels of the party. This is about what the GM thought your statement meant, and what you said it meant the next round.

He clearly believed that you were unable to drink a potion the next round. Full stop.
You drank a potion as your action the next round. Full stop.

Ergo, there must have been some miscommunication as to the status of your character on the previous round and/or what that meant in terms of your characters ability to take any specific action on this round. Otherwise, the GM would not have been surprised that you could take "drink a potion" as an action, and said "I thought you were unconscious". He clearly believed that the status of your character meant you could not drink a potion.

Arguing about what the game rules actually allow is irrelevant. This is about what the GM thought your character could do as a result of the damage you took the previous round and your stated condition as a result of that damage. He clearly believed that your character should not have been able to drink a potion, or he would not have been surprised when you stated "I drink a potion" as your action the next round. Right?

Everything else is irrelevant.

So, do you remember in my last thread when I said most of my gaming problems are about ego?

That's what this is about as well.

When I make a mistake, I try and quietly fix it behind the screen if possible. If it isn't, I admit my mistake to the players, apologize, and then have a grown up conversation about what went wrong and how to go forward.

That is what I thought Brian was doing (although I wasn't sure, I was very confused) and so I asked him if he was asking for my permission to retcon the monster's actions if it meant killing off my character.

This is what set him off, and caused him to declare that his the GM and he doesn't need the players permission, and for he and the new girl to make fun of me about it for the rest of the session.

And that is what I am upset about, what I perceive to be bullying, rather than an actual dispute of who was at fault for the misunderstanding (if that's even what happened).

In short, Brian got mad that I was questioning his authority and decided to tease me about it, which in turn hurt my feelings.

[gbaji]

Ok. I'll raise the issue/question I raised before. Are you more familiar with the game rules than the GM (Brian?)?

That can always cause problems at a table, since the GM will feel that he is being "corrected" in the game rules and application of such by a player at the table. And this, in turn, can be amplified when there are ego issues involved.

He clearly interpreted whatever you said to him as an usurption of his authority as GM. Doesn't mean that he was reasonable to interpret it that way, but that does seem to be what happened. Perhaps analyze exactly what was said in the conversation to examine how that may have happened, and then consider different ways to have that same conversation so as to avoid it in the future.

And yeah. Said conclusion can absolutely be "Just don't let him GM again". Or "just let him make mistakes when ruling things like this" if that's not something you want.


I once, many years ago, was playing a game with a GM who famously had not actually played the game much, but GMed it a lot. We were playing a new edition of the rules that had some significant changes in how some magic items worked. I was also the first player to play a specific type of character in this game, which relied heavily on a specific set of these "new rules" in the game. I was using an item in the game as described (quite clearly btw) in the rules. He, for some very strange reason, had a very different idea of how this particular rule should work and insisted that I follow his interpretation. Now, as it happened, his way of doing things effectively "broke" the main magical ability of the character I was playing. Not unplayable, but made things extremely difficult and unbalanced. I basically had a choice. I could continue to argue that the rules clearly stated that this thing worked the way I said it did, and that I was right and he was wrong, and likely just escalate the entire thing until he or I had to leave the game. Or just accept his ruling, adjust my play style of my character, and continue playing.

I did the latter. Despite abolutely knowing for 100% certain that the GM was "wrong", it ultimately didn't matter. Sometimes "winning the argument" isn't worth it. You can make your case. You can explain why you think X should be a certain way. But once you recieve a "I say it's this way and that's final", you just have to stop arguing. At the end of the day, the GM gets to decide this, not the player. It's part of what you accept when you agree to play at a table. And if you really don't like it, you can always just choose not to play. In this particular case, the scenarios and stories and whatnot that this GM ran were good enough in every other way that I was willing to just accept this one silly/strange rules interpretation for the sake of "having fun" playing the game. In other cases, that may not be the case.

[Cygnia]

And yeah. Said conclusion can absolutely be "Just don't let him GM again". Or "just let him make mistakes when ruling things like this" if that's not something you want.

Or leave the entire group behind, if this keeps happening regardless if you're the player or GM and everyone else appears to get their rocks off in seeing you fail and squirm.

[Pauly]

To go back to the football analogy. ‘Down’ has a specific meaning in football codes that involve tackling opponents (American Football, Rugby Union, Australian Rules Football for example).
If the referee declares a player to be ‘down’ that means the play is dead and no more action can be taken.
Depending on the code of football being played and the situation a player may declare themselves to be ‘down’ to the referee, who will then call the play dead.

In both situations once the player is called ‘down’ the play is dead. A player can’t call themselves ‘down’ then exploit of the fact that their opponent stops playing to gives themselves an advantage.

In regards to the question in the OP.
Do-overs/rewinds/retcons whatever you want to call them are valid when:
a) There is a genuine misunderstanding of rule mechanics
b) Information has been misunderstood.
c) the flow on effects are easily reversible.

[Captain Cap]

Especially in this case when I wasn't even talking to the GM, but to my fellow players, and could have simply kept my mouth shut and said nothing at all.
What do you mean with "I wasn't even talking to the GM"? Are you saying you weren't communicating your PC's actions to him?

[Satinavian]

Does this happen in your games?

Do players not get upset?

Where do you draw the line for misunderstanding vs. mistakes?

I think there is a lot to discuss here personally.
It does happen in my games.

Players never get upset about it.

It is for misunderstandings, not for mistakes. I can't remember anyone ever wanting to use it for mistakes.

[Lacco]

It does happen in my games.

Players never get upset about it.

It is for misunderstandings, not for mistakes. I can't remember anyone ever wanting to use it for mistakes.

Same here.

It usually happens when we find out there was something the character would notice/know/do but we omitted it by misunderstanding or even mistake. We agree upon the solution (regarding rewind/reroll/rewhatever) with players, with the GM being a tiebreaker.

Table etiquette should cover this too: if players get rewinds, GMs should get them too. Same rules apply to both sides.


To go back to the football analogy. ‘Down’ has a specific meaning in football codes that involve tackling opponents (American Football, Rugby Union, Australian Rules Football for example).
If the referee declares a player to be ‘down’ that means the play is dead and no more action can be taken.
Depending on the code of football being played and the situation a player may declare themselves to be ‘down’ to the referee, who will then call the play dead.

In both situations once the player is called ‘down’ the play is dead. A player can’t call themselves ‘down’ then exploit of the fact that their opponent stops playing to gives themselves an advantage.

In regards to the question in the OP.
Do-overs/rewinds/retcons whatever you want to call them are valid when:
a) There is a genuine misunderstanding of rule mechanics
b) Information has been misunderstood.
c) the flow on effects are easily reversible.

I like the clear rules for rewinds. I'd only add that I usually allow rewinds when the player would would make a different IC decision if they were actually viewing the world by character's eyes.

In this case, this could also lead to an enemy choosing to finish the downed character if they see him moving around and reaching for some healing potion instead of just laying in a pool of blood dying, although I would usually clearly communicate the character's state to the GM.

I'd say this is also an artifact of the system: if 'down' is not defined and was used instead of specific term (incapacitated & dying), it could cause confusion. HP systems tend to have some issues in this, as opposed to wound-based systems. And of course, 20:20 battle vision applies for the OP's game, so that's another issue.

[Morgaln]

So, do you remember in my last thread when I said most of my gaming problems are about ego?

That's what this is about as well.

When I make a mistake, I try and quietly fix it behind the screen if possible. If it isn't, I admit my mistake to the players, apologize, and then have a grown up conversation about what went wrong and how to go forward.


Honestly, I don't quite buy this. You aren't even able to admit in this thread that you share blame in a miscommunication. You keep claiming that "down" is a straightforward term with no alternate interpretations and the GM should have known exactly what you meant by it with no room for confusion. Incidentally, if "down" doesn't mean unconscious, it doesn't mean dead and it doesn't mean unable to act, what even is the meaning you were going for? What information were you trying to convey?

Bluntly speaking, this whole thread reads like you want us to take sides against the GM, and you're surprised that most people don't.



That is what I thought Brian was doing (although I wasn't sure, I was very confused) and so I asked him if he was asking for my permission to retcon the monster's actions if it meant killing off my character.

This is what set him off, and caused him to declare that his the GM and he doesn't need the players permission, and for he and the new girl to make fun of me about it for the rest of the session.

And that is what I am upset about, what I perceive to be bullying, rather than an actual dispute of who was at fault for the misunderstanding (if that's even what happened).

In short, Brian got mad that I was questioning his authority and decided to tease me about it, which in turn hurt my feelings.

Yeah, from what you've told us about your players before, I am not at all surprised they would react like that if they think their authority was challenged. That is crappy behavior and I sympathize with you, because it would have hurt my feelings as well. It does make me wonder (again) why you keep playing with these people, but that has been discussed to death in many threads. All the usual advice to solve this will not work with your group, because they are toxic and dysfunctional.

[King of Nowhere]

It does happen in my games.

Players never get upset about it.

It is for misunderstandings, not for mistakes. I can't remember anyone ever wanting to use it for mistakes.

Same here too.
If somebody performs a wrong action because of a communication misunderstanding, we try to retcon it. As this game depends entirely on communication, it's only fair. It most often happen to players, because the gm is the one with the information and it is more common for a player to misunderstand the situation. It's especially fair if somebody is doing something stupid as a result.
In your case, it would be very dumb for the boss to beat you up until you're almost incapacitated, then stop.
Now, this particular incident just happened to kill your character, and so in this case i may have retconned it as "let's just pretend that your character dropped and feigned death and he fooled everyone". But as a general rule, this kind of retcons is sensible. And it has nothing to do with the dm doing it or killing a pc as a result.

Also, i can totally see my table joking about it, but it would be good-natured. Not sure about your table.

In general, this is just a simple miscommunication problem that should have been solved one way or another without causing any drama had it happened at a table with mature adults

[Talakeal]

To go back to the football analogy. ‘Down’ has a specific meaning in football codes that involve tackling opponents (American Football, Rugby Union, Australian Rules Football for example).
If the referee declares a player to be ‘down’ that means the play is dead and no more action can be taken.
Depending on the code of football being played and the situation a player may declare themselves to be ‘down’ to the referee, who will then call the play dead.

In both situations once the player is called ‘down’ the play is dead. A player can’t call themselves ‘down’ then exploit of the fact that their opponent stops playing to gives themselves an advantage.

Sorry, not a sports ball guy. Pretend I said Basketball, or Baseball, or Bowling, or some other sport where "goes down" is not an official rule.

My point was that in my lexicon "goes down" colloquially means injured, not specifically unconscious.

I am curious about the process of declaring yourself down, and if the ref would actually decide to penalize you for saying you were down when you meant you had been hurt but the ball is still alive, but my google-fu shows nothing.


What do you mean with "I wasn't even talking to the GM"? Are you saying you weren't communicating your PC's actions to him?

Actions yes. But I was not giving him a "status report" of my characters condition, merely communicating to my fellow players that I had hit zero HP and could not continue fighting and that they needed to pick up my slack.


Honestly, I don't quite buy this. You aren't even able to admit in this thread that you share blame in a miscommunication. You keep claiming that "down" is a straightforward term with no alternate interpretations and the GM should have known exactly what you meant by it with no room for confusion. Incidentally, if "down" doesn't mean unconscious, it doesn't mean dead and it doesn't mean unable to act, what even is the meaning you were going for? What information were you trying to convey?

Not at all.

If there had been a miscommunication, both party's are to blame.

I am of the oppinion that there ARE multiple interpretations of "down" and only fighting against comments like "no reasonable person would use down to mean injured rather than unconscious".

What I am arguing is that no miscommunication happened because my system doesn't have a clear divide between able to act and unable to act, but because I phrased the first post using D&D terms rather than Heart of Darkness terminology everyone glommed on to what is, essentially, a red herring argument than never happened.


Bluntly speaking, this whole thread reads like you want us to take sides against the GM, and you're surprised that most people don't.

So, the crux of the issue was that the GM was incensed that he would need to ask the player's permission to kill their character with a ret-con, and then spent the rest of the session mocking me about it. I was curious about how many people actually extended the DM's authority that far.

Instead, the thread has mostly been fixated on the semantics of the word down, which wasn't the issue in the game. Everyone who has mentioned the GM's "bullying" behavior has seemed to take my side here.

The more interesting (to me) issue of probing the edges of where the GM's authority lies has mostly not been addressed.


Same here.

It usually happens when we find out there was something the character would notice/know/do but we omitted it by misunderstanding or even mistake. We agree upon the solution (regarding rewind/reroll/rewhatever) with players, with the GM being a tiebreaker.

Table etiquette should cover this too: if players get rewinds, GMs should get them too. Same rules apply to both sides.

I like the clear rules for rewinds. I'd only add that I usually allow rewinds when the player would would make a different IC decision if they were actually viewing the world by character's eyes.

In this case, this could also lead to an enemy choosing to finish the downed character if they see him moving around and reaching for some healing potion instead of just laying in a pool of blood dying, although I would usually clearly communicate the character's state to the GM.

I'd say this is also an artifact of the system: if 'down' is not defined and was used instead of specific term (incapacitated & dying), it could cause confusion. HP systems tend to have some issues in this, as opposed to wound-based systems. And of course, 20:20 battle vision applies for the OP's game, so that's another issue.

This is more or less how I feel about the situation as well.

I have always ran the game that when someone misunderstands what is going on, its an issue outside of the rules, and we need to stop the game and talk it over like adults. I thought that was what was happening here; and apparently the GM took this as a challenge to his authority and got really nasty about it.

[Captain Cap]

But I was not giving him a "status report" of my characters condition
Why not? That seems a pretty reasonable thing to do. Does your DM not communicate when your enemies reach 0 HP, are debilitated etc.?


If there had been a miscommunication, both party's are to blame.
That's not necessarily true. The one communicating is the one who has access to all the relevant info, and therefore has the onus to be clear.
Sure, it can also be the fault of the receiver, but this can't share the same degree of responsibility in general.


I am of the oppinion that there ARE multiple interpretations of "down" and only fighting against comments like "no reasonable person would use down to mean injured rather than unconscious".
I've just finished watching season 1 of The Punisher (a bit late, I know :smallbiggrin:): multiple times we see him battered, injured, soaked in blood, and yet he regularly kills foes in these conditions.
If you're injured but can still take part to combat, and potentially injure someone else, then you're not meaningfully "down".

But I agree that "down" shouldn't exclusively mean unconscious.


What I am arguing is that no miscommunication happened because my system doesn't have a clear divide between able to act and unable to act, but because I phrased the first post using D&D terms rather than Heart of Darkness terminology everyone glommed on to what is, essentially, a red herring argument than never happened.
You realize we can't know all that stuff a priori, right? If you use D&D terms, which actually assume a clear divide between being able and unable to act, to explain a situation about a completely different game, you're bound to generate misconceptions.
And connecting to my previous point, the onus to be clear is on you, the one presenting the scenario. We were not in the room with you, we can only interpret what happened through what you say to us, so you can't really be surprised if your miscommunication raises some questions.


So, the crux of the issue was that the GM was incensed that he would need to ask the player's permission to kill their character with a ret-con, and then spent the rest of the session mocking me about it. I was curious about how many people actually extended the DM's authority that far.
A couple questions: would it have been okay if the DM killed your character without the retcon? Do you believe it would have been within their authority?


Instead, the thread has mostly been fixated on the semantics of the word down, which wasn't the issue in the game.
Again, from the way you've presented it, it could have very well been the issue. And the more you're prone to miscommunication, the more you present yourself as an unreliable narrator.

[Talakeal]

That's not necessarily true. The one communicating is the one who has access to all the relevant info, and therefore has the onus to be clear.
Sure, it can also be the fault of the receiver, but this can't share the same degree of responsibility in general.

Please, please, let's not turn this into another thread about trying to place blame and calculate the exact percentages, I can't take it again, I'm begging you!


Why not? That seems a pretty reasonable thing to do. Does your DM not communicate when your enemies reach 0 HP, are debilitated etc.?

We don't typically give detailed status reports, no. Typically we say something like "I am down" or lay a model on its side when we hit zero hit points and just take the model off the table when something dies (or hides or flees). If its a "boss monster" the DM will typically give a little flavor speech about it going down / retreating, and if its a player, well, people tend to make a big deal when they die.



I've just finished watching season 1 of The Punisher (a bit late, I know :smallbiggrin:): multiple times we see him battered, injured, soaked in blood, and yet he regularly kills foes in these conditions.
If you're injured but can still take part to combat, and potentially injure someone else, then you're not meaningfully "down".

But I agree that "down" shouldn't exclusively mean unconscious.

Would "out of action" be a better phrase than injured? I agree, I wouldn't call a sports player "down" if they weren't hurt badly enough to take them out of the game, even temporarily.

In Heart of Darkness, when your damage total exceeds your endurance score, you are dying and must make a save vs. death or suffer further injury or death whenever you act.
If your damage total exceeds your Willpower score, you are disabled and cannot act without taking a resolve test first.

Both of these are generally considered "down" or "out of action" or "incapacitated" at our table.



A couple questions: would it have been okay if the DM killed your character without the retcon? Do you believe it would have been within their authority?

Within his authority? Sure.

It would have been odd though.

In our table culture we don't normally focus on downed enemies when there are still active targets up; it makes no sense from a tactical perspective (although it might meet a long term strategic goal) and is pretty mean to the downed player.

It would be especially weird in this situation where the monster had been dividing its attacks evenly to suddenly focus fire on one player out of the blue.



You realize we can't know all that stuff a priori, right? If you use D&D terms, which actually assume a clear divide between being able and unable to act, to explain a situation about a completely different game, you're bound to generate misconceptions.
And connecting to my previous point, the onus to be clear is on you, the one presenting the scenario. We were not in the room with you, we can only interpret what happened through what you say to us, so you can't really be surprised if your miscommunication raises some questions.

Again, from the way you've presented it, it could have very well been the issue. And the more you're prone to miscommunication, the more you present yourself as an unreliable narrator.

I already said, that was my bad. If I had known the direction this thread would take, I would have been much more careful about phrasing.

And yeah, if the issue was actually about the DM misunderstanding down, that would also be an example of careless phrasing.

But careless phrasing =/= dishonest or crazy as is normally what is meant by unreliable narrator. And I am always willing to clarify and elaborate upon what I said when it becomes an issue.

[Captain Cap]

it makes no sense from a tactical perspective (although it might meet a long term strategic goal) and is pretty mean to the downed player.
It kind of depends if pop-up healing is a thing in your game.


And yeah, if the issue was actually about the DM misunderstanding down, that would also be an example of careless phrasing.
What's eluding me is, if there wasn't a misunderstanding, then what prompted your DM to make the retcon? If they just wanted to kill your character, then why didn't they do it right away?
I know you said that you tried to ask the DM and they seemingly don't remember, but it feels like I'm missing something. Or did I actually miss a key point?


But careless phrasing =/= dishonest or crazy as is normally what is meant by unreliable narrator.
Being an unreliable narrator doesn't imply dishonesty in general, it refers to any case in which the narrator doesn't seem to properly or objectively convey the narration, either deliberately or not. For example someone emotionally invested in a certain topic may be an unreliable narrator because of clouded judgement, not because they're intentionally misleading the audience.

[King of Nowhere]

My point was that in my lexicon "goes down" colloquially means injured, not specifically unconscious.

... if the ref would actually decide to penalize you for saying you were down ...

So, the crux of the issue was that the GM was incensed that he would need to ask the player's permission to kill their character with a ret-con...


but the crux of the issue that you seem to be missing is that
1)you are not being penalized, 2) whether you were killed or not is completely irrelevant 3) it's not the retcon that killed you
what should have happened at the table was, during the boss turn, the boss hits you "I'm still at 0 hp" "ok, the boss makes his remaining attack on you" [roll, enough damage to kill immediately], and you should have died there.
this is what would have happened with clear communication. instead the dm understood "i'm unconscious" "ok, the boss sees you're out of the fight and attacks someone else".
so the retcon only resets what would have happened normally. no, it's not necessarily a punishment (at least, at my table we could do something like that without any punitive intent. At your table, I'm not sure). you did not die for the retcon, you died because the boss attacked you until you were dead. and the fact that he rolled well and you ended up dead for real is only coincidential.

Look, imagine an opposite scenario of miscommunication. "i approach the door, checking for traps"
"ok, you fall into the big lava pit in the middle of the room"
"but i did say I check for traps"
"it's not a trap, it's a giant open lava pit in the middle of the room. to approach the door, you have to move over it"
"ah, ok, i missed it. well, clearly then my character would not have walked over the lava."
would you say that the dm saved your character? retconned your character alive? the dm graced you after you died? Nope, he did nothing of the sort. he only went with what was reasonable.

indeed, in your case we could safely say that the dm would be "gracing" or "sparing" your character if he decided to not retcon. and yes, many dm would have done it, but it's not guaranteed.


Everyone who has mentioned the GM's "bullying" behavior has seemed to take my side here.

perhaps the dm acted unpleasant to you. probably he did, he's bob. perhaps you acted unpleasant first, it's hard to tell. Regardless of any unpleasantness that followed, none of this is relevant to the argument of whether the retcon should have happened or not.
And I won't touch that issue because the narration is very unreliable there. you are prone to a subjective perspective on it, and you by your own admission are not good at reading social moods, and so it could well be more misunderstandings, with both parties misinterpreting the other's posture and tone of voice, or you being oppositive by accident, or any other possibility.
of course, we already know your players are toxic and rarely do anything to deescalate a toxic situation, or even just to not aggravate it further, so they certainly share part of the blame. they may be to blame entirely.
I'm just not passing judgment on this when all I have is a partial, nuanced picture.




The more interesting (to me) issue of probing the edges of where the GM's authority lies has mostly not been addressed.


Actually it's been addressed by many, stating that retconning for a miscommunication is not only perfectly allowed, but also right and sensible.
In fact, your very title is misleading - and could be interpreted maliciously. You are leaving out an important, fundamental part of the issue - that there was a very good reason for retconning. it's like asking whether it's ok to kill somebody without specifying that it's in self defence. And the issue in this case was not dm authority; players will ask for and get retcons when they do something clearly stupid because they misunderstood a situation.

As for the more general issue of dm authority, it's very simple. the dm authority extends as far as his party allows him. this depends on how much the party trusts the gm, how much the party is made of pushovers, whether the rest of the party would prefer no gaming to bad gaming and how likely they are to kick the dm out of the group and start a new group with a new gm.
It's a lot better to have authority based on trust - to have the players accept your rulings because they believe you are a nice guy and you have good ideas and in the past following you led to fun games, and the few times that you screwed up, well, nobody is perfect. At good table, this is what happens. But your table shows that sometimes the gm can have no trust whatsoever, he's still safe as long as the other players prefer to play with him rather than not playing, and don't have a backup gaming group.

[Zuras]

It's funny, people talk about how horrible an environment my group is, but this sounds like some of the most hostile GMing I have ever heard of and I would never play at your table.

It's not fun to play "jackass genie" with the GM. If you respond to a player making a statement that is straightforward and grammatically correct because you can interpret the words differently, you are a hostile GM, period.

Also, let me guess that this only goes one way, right? Like, if I say "Whelp, I'm dead" in response to being threatened by the BBEG, my character automatically dies for no reason, but if I say "I'm gonna kill him," in response to the BBEG, I would still have to follow the normal system of attack rolls and HP and whatnot, right?

People keep getting the impression you have a group with toxic tendencies precisely because you interpret other people’s comments to imply their tables are dystopian hellscapes.

At a fundamental level, the GM can do anything at the table, as long as there is player buy-in. GMs can (and do) retcon entire sessions sometimes, with player agreement. This normally only happens after someone raises the X card in a session, but it definitely happens.

In most situations, though, the retcon is simply to change the current game state to be consistent with session events. Most commonly in D&D this involves ruling that characters must have forgotten their bags of holding at home after we realize they’ve gone through multiple extra-dimensional spaces that should have dumped everyone in the astral plane an hour ago.

[Satinavian]

The more interesting (to me) issue of probing the edges of where the GM's authority lies has mostly not been addressed.
Hmmm...

The first answer adressed it.
The second answer adressed it.
The third answer adressed it.
The fourth answer adressed it after talking about your specific example.
The fifth answer adressed it.
The sixth answer adresses it.
The seventh answer adresses it.
The eights answer is your reply to answer four discussing your personal table event and ignoring everything about the other topic.

And you find more example as it goes on. But most people only answer once about this issue having said everything that is to say. Without disagreement there is no discussion. After that the discussion shifts to the events of your table, which is also the part of the discussion you are actually taking part in.

If you want to discuss limits of GMs authority over retcons, then make your case about why you think the GM should not have that authority. Then we will have something to discuss.

[Willie the Duck]

Does this happen in your games?
Yes. Not often, but when necessary.

Do players not get upset?
The specifics of the event in-game, or whatever mistake or misunderstanding happened that necessitated the retcon in the first place? Certainly. About the specific act of a retcon being performed? No.

Where do you draw the line for misunderstanding vs. mistakes?
The line is when something happened which would have a reasonable influence on the outcome of endeavors that by all accounts* would not have if communication and error-proof play of the game approached perfection. Judgement calls have to be made, and some calls are easier than others -- 'oops, I was supposed to take off a fuel charge after the last lap,' is a no-brainer, 'actually, my character wouldn't have picked the door on the right, as we've established that they favor guessing left' likely wouldn't fly after everyone since discovered that the door on the right was trapped. However, 'actually, I wouldn't have even tried to open the locked chest, I forgot my thieves' tools are at the bottom of the water hazard at the start of the dungeon' might well even if there was a negative consequence to opening said chest.
*dictated by negotiated communal dialogue, with DM final-call for each instance (but like all things a DM who consistently makes bad calls will not have players)

And remember, this cuts both ways. Sometimes it benefits the PCs. Sometimes drastically. Largest retcon that ever happened in my group went down roughly like this:
Player #5 (who had been out for a few weeks): "Hi guys, how have our adventures gone?"
Player #1: "Well, we're now on a boat headed to Fantasy Australia (or equivalent 'halfway across the world' place) to get the MacGuffin."
DM: "Wait, I thought you were headed there to confront Villain #1 (who had personally wronged you)."
Player #2: "Right, Contact #1 said that Villain #1 had the MacGuffin."
DM: "Right, had it, but then gave it to Villain #2 in exchange for the diamonds you intercepted."
Player #3: "I don't remember you saying that."
DM: "It was in Contact #1's speech, right before we broke for dinner. You saw Villain #2 on the docks of Fantasy Venice as you were leaving and told them 'we'll deal with you later,' why would you say that if you thought you were going to get the MacGuffin from confronting Villain #1, you could head straight from Fantasy Australia to the Plot Resolution Temple and never be back in Fantasy Venice again."
Player #4: Well, we might be back at some point... more to the point, even if we don't, they don't know we won't be back..."
<some back and forth over whose recollection was more likely, with no resolution>
DM: "Okay, we've established we don't know whether I only thought I'd mentioned the MacGuffin transfer but hadn't, or whether I had mentioned it, but it got lost in people dealing with the meal. At this point it doesn't matter. You're headed to Fantasy Australia, towards Villain #1 but away from the MacGuffin. How do we want to proceed -- A) declare this a personal vendetta and your characters are seeking out Villain #1 first deliberately, B) retcon it such that Villain #1 actually has the MacGuffin (and we'll figure out how that makes sense somehow), or C) you never left, try to roll-back your characters to as they looked before the voyage started, and we start chasing Villain #2 through the waterways of Fantasy Venice?"

Now, we went with option C because 1) our characters would not have left the MacGuffin alone to pursue a personal vendetta, and 2)we wanted to see the villains' plans come together (or not, given that we were trying to stop them) as the DM had initially envisioned them. Obviously that group had a lot more trust and sense of cooperation than you have ever described your group(s), so I don't know if you can glean anything useful from the example.


That is what I thought Brian was doing (although I wasn't sure, I was very confused) and so I asked him if he was asking for my permission to retcon the monster's actions if it meant killing off my character.
This is what set him off, and caused him to declare that his the GM and he doesn't need the players permission, and for he and the new girl to make fun of me about it for the rest of the session.
And that is what I am upset about, what I perceive to be bullying, rather than an actual dispute of who was at fault for the misunderstanding (if that's even what happened).
In short, Brian got mad that I was questioning his authority and decided to tease me about it, which in turn hurt my feelings.
So this isn't really about whether retcons are appropriate, but about your game group being toxic? I mean, great, because we can all get behind you on your group clearly being toxic. But then elsewhere in thread you are disappointed that people are focused on the specifics of the scenario instead of discussing the general topic of ret-cons, so I hope you understand our confusion.


Instead, the thread has mostly been fixated on the semantics of the word down, which wasn't the issue in the game. Everyone who has mentioned the GM's "bullying" behavior has seemed to take my side here.
Don't over-generalize. Much of the thread has been fixated on trying to figure out what exactly actually happened in the gaming event (because that has been really hard to parse out from your posts). Likewise, people who have mentioned the GM's "bullying" behavior have taken your side here on the subject of not being subject to toxic gamers. What we feel on the situation as a whole (especially with regards to retcons and a DM's authority to do them) is going to be a separate matter entirely. I, for one, don't understand why a retcon is distinct from any other situation-determination that a DM has to make (as good or bad as the individual judgement, not good or bad based on whether it is a retcon or something else).

[Easy e]

I am joining late, and skipping most of the other answers, so apologies if I add nothing new to the discussion.

Can a GM declare a Retcon? Yes.

Should they? Probably not UNLESS it is in the player's favor and immediate.

At our table, we pretty much do not do retcons, because it is too hard to unpeel all the other results that have happened between the time we realize the mistake and when the mistake happened. However, I can not recall a "lethal" mistake happening but my memory sucks.

[Talakeal]

People keep getting the impression you have a group with toxic tendencies precisely because you interpret other people’s comments to imply their tables are dystopian hellscapes.

Sort of.

Its easy to be a hard-ass on the internet.

If a GM actually told a player they lost their turn because they used casual imprecise language, I would consider them a jackass.

I don't believe the person who I was responding to actually does that in games he runs, I think he is merely stating it here for dramatic emphasis.

But on the of chance he does invent on the fly penalties for players speaking casually, then yeah, his table is a dystopian hellscape that I would never want to play at.


At a fundamental level, the GM can do anything at the table, as long as there is player buy-in. GMs can (and do) retcon entire sessions sometimes, with player agreement. This normally only happens after someone raises the X card in a session, but it definitely happens.

In most situations, though, the retcon is simply to change the current game state to be consistent with session events. Most commonly in D&D this involves ruling that characters must have forgotten their bags of holding at home after we realize they’ve gone through multiple extra-dimensional spaces that should have dumped everyone in the astral plane an hour ago.

Player buy-in being the key here.

I totally agree with this; but what upset me was that the my GM thought I was being "uppity" for believing he was asking for buy in, telling me his power to ret-con was absolute, and then proceeding to mock me for it for the rest of the session.


If you want to discuss limits of GMs authority over retcons, then make your case about why you think the GM should not have that authority. Then we will have something to discuss.

Because I have never seen a game explicitly give this permission.

I honestly can't think of any game that comes right out and says "the GM does whatever they want without limit" although some people have readings of certain rule books that go this way.

Most games either say the table can implement a house rule, or that the GM has the authority when it comes to resolving vague or contradictory rules, but that isn't what happened here, the rules of the game were perfectly clear and gives no provision for a "ret-con" or "take-back".


So this isn't really about whether retcons are appropriate, but about your game group being toxic? I mean, great, because we can all get behind you on your group clearly being toxic. But then elsewhere in thread you are disappointed that people are focused on the specifics of the scenario instead of discussing the general topic of ret-cons, so I hope you understand our confusion.

Oh, I think everyone agrees my group is toxic.

But again, what the toxic incident about this time was the GM taking offense at the presumption that he needed player buy-in to rewind and do over the last two turns of the game.

We can all agree he acted like a jerk about it, but whether or not he had a legitimate grievance is up for debate.


but the crux of the issue that you seem to be missing is that
1)you are not being penalized, 2) whether you were killed or not is completely irrelevant 3) it's not the retcon that killed you
what should have happened at the table was, during the boss turn, the boss hits you "I'm still at 0 hp" "ok, the boss makes his remaining attack on you" [roll, enough damage to kill immediately], and you should have died there.
this is what would have happened with clear communication. instead the dm understood "i'm unconscious" "ok, the boss sees you're out of the fight and attacks someone else".
so the retcon only resets what would have happened normally. no, it's not necessarily a punishment (at least, at my table we could do something like that without any punitive intent. At your table, I'm not sure). you did not die for the retcon, you died because the boss attacked you until you were dead. and the fact that he rolled well and you ended up dead for real is only coincidental.

Again, I didn't think the specifics of trying to place blame for the miscommunication would be the focus of the thread, so I wrote a brief summary using D&D terminology without thinking to closely about it.


So, here is what I thinking you pictured happening:

GM: Talakeal, monster uses his first attack and hits you for X damage.
Me: I am down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his second attack and hits Johnny for Y damage.
Johnny: I am not down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his third attack and hits Feur for Z damage.
Me: Ok, on my turn I heal myself and get back up.
GM: Wait... I thought you said you were unconscious?
Me: No, I was down, but I am still fully capable of acting.
GM: Well, hold on there, then the monster is going to keep attacking you rather than switching targets. Apply Y and Z damage to yourself.
Me: What? How dare you! The forums will hear about this!


What actually happened (as best as I can remember):

GM: Monster attacks Jonny for X damage, Johnny for Y damage, and Talakeal for Z damage.
Me: Well, I'm down!*
GM: Proceeds to have the monster's minions fight.
Us: Roll a bunch of AoEs and damage shields.
Bod: Takes his turn.
Jonny: Takes his turn.
Feur: Takes his turn.
New Girl: Takes her turn.
Me: Is it my turn?
Party: Yes.
Me: Ok, well I am going to crawl....
GM: Rolls a bunch of dice.
GM: Talakeal, you take "unholy amount of damage"**
Me: What? That will kill me. What the heck is going on?
GM: Well, if he knew you were going to continue fighting him, he would have finished you off instead of splitting his attacks.
Me: Wait, are you asking permission to go back and take a do over based on my actions this round because you forgot my Willpower was higher than my Endurance?
GM: I am sorry, I didn't realize I needed your "permission". Fine then,
GM: Ok then, so on the bosses turn he goes to attack. New girl, do I have your *permission* to attack you? LOL!
Me: What the hell just happened...?

* And to be perfectly honest, I am not sure if I even used the word "down". I might have said out, dying, at zero, that's it for me, etc.
**: The damage I took was way more than Johnny and Feur took the previous round. He might have rolled a critical, or he might have also rerolled my initial damage and added it on, I am not sure and its pretty tangential.

[Satinavian]

Because I have never seen a game explicitly give this permission.

I honestly can't think of any game that comes right out and says "the GM does whatever they want without limit" although some people have readings of certain rule books that go this way.

"retcons" are not "whatever they want".
"in case of and to resolve misunderstandings" is not "without limit".

Yes, there are people arguing for for giving the GM nearly unlimited power. And those tend to get a lot of backlash at this forum as this is quite the controversial stance. But this is not he question you asked. The people arguing that GMs should be able to retcon in case of misunderstanding are not the ones arguing for GMs having ultimate power.

If you want to discuss GMs with unlimited power, you can make a new thread. Don't conflate these topics.




You have now read a lot of answers about retcons on peoples tables. Are you disagreeing with anyone ? Do you want to share your own opinion about retcons ?




As you can see in this thread, retcons to resolve misunderstanding are widely accepted. It is obvious that is not the result you hoped for. But the reason is simple : Do you know any better method to proceed after a misunderstanding surfaces that influenced actions already taken ?

[Talakeal]

"retcons" are not "whatever they want".
"in case of and to resolve misunderstandings" is not "without limit".

Yes, there are people arguing for for giving the GM nearly unlimited power. And those tend to get a lot of backlash at this forum as this is quite the controversial stance. But this is not he question you asked. The people arguing that GMs should be able to retcon in case of misunderstanding are not the ones arguing for GMs having ultimate power.

If you want to discuss GMs with unlimited power, you can make a new thread. Don't conflate these topics.

I agree, the topics should not be conflated. But if I don't mention it, the "Rule 0 is absolute" people tend to come in and say "of course the rules give the GM the right to retcon something, the rules give the GM the power to do anything!"


Do you want to share your own opinion about retcons ?

As something that falls outside of the rules, it is something that can be done by anyone (PC, NPC, the setting as a whole) only with table buy-in.

If it doesn't directly effect anyone else, nobody else should have a problem with it. Saying "I want my character's eyes to be blue instead of green" or the DM saying "I said the farmer was from Ogdenville, but I realized that doesn't make sense, he is actually from North Haverbrook" shouldn't really raise any flags. Saying "You're attack does nothing because I retroactively cast protection before the battle" or "You die because I retroactively focus fire on you" are things that should probably have a dialogue.

Where the line lies between misunderstanding and making a mistake is a fuzzy one; I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and expect the same. But it can be hazy, much like the line between breaking character and giving the PCs OOC hints and better explaining the situation to them when they get stuck.

[Quertus]

Just throwing my 2 copper in, but... yes, "retcon" is a tool in the GM's toolkit, but it's kinda a nuclear option. So it would be bad form for the GM to use in this case. That said, the group can retcon, and generally should break to OOC to evaluate doing so when there's been a miscommunication or misruling. This process should be a smooth OOC negotiation. And the group should work (should preemptively have worked) to ensure they never have to retcon, and, in the event of the need for a retcon, should work to improve themselves such that they never need to retcon again. But "have a sane conversation about something" is not a move in any Bizarro World playbook, so what works at normal tables is only useful to the rest of us / only useful as theoretical ivory tower musings in this particular case.

As to the specifics of the miscommunication, the first step to solving any problem is to identify the problem. The underlying system not having an "unconscious" state... not having a direct path to an unconscious state... not having a method by which the system-agnostic interpretation of the phrase "I'm down" would logically follow from the given series of events... doesn't matter, "I'm down" is psychological warfare; intentionally or not, it's lying to the GM via the connotation those words evoke. Just like me calling it "psychological warfare" is the wrong words. It's not surprising that someone might misuse the phrase, "I'm down" (I've probably done it myself), but it is surprising that anyone would fight for the "correctness" of the phrase in the face of so much pushback. That said, I'll admit, "down" is a reserved word in some systems meaning "knocked down" or "prone", so in an RPG context, I can be a little more forgiving1. The peculiarities of the specific event are even more baffling: if I'm reading the thread correctly, the GM got 0 feedback; their only intel wrt PC state is from intercepting a communique to a neutral 3rd party? Really? How does this table even function? :smallconfused:

Once you have identified that you are in a miscommunication state, the correct response is to break to OOC, get the correct information, and see how to resolve any issues that arose from the miscommunication (where, yes, you keep "group retcon" hotkeyed). Which, it seems, is exactly what the GM tried to do... with all the skill I expect from Bizarro World, proposing a dumb(?) solution in a way that itself invites miscommunication protocol. I say that this solution was only maybe dumb because the actual game state and flow of events seems a bit muddled, and the monster's exact personality and motivations are undefined. But it certainly sounds dumb from a player PoV ignorant of the monster's mindset, and from several of the physical setups I've envisioned for the fight, to propose the specific retcon that the GM suggested.

If nothing changes, nothing changes. Things will never get better in Bizarro World until something changes. I'm going to take an unpopular minority stance, and state that I'm actually in favor of bullying people to make the game better. If people have a habit of ignoring people saying things like that they need to improve their communication, I'm all for teasing them about it until that teasing provides the motivation for them to improve, although there's a difference between teasing someone to encourage them to grow, vs teasing them for something outside their control. You can tease someone for saying they warsh in the crik, not for the way their voice sounds when they lose their front teeth, for example. For the latter, you can only auto-interpret yourself when able, and ask them, "did you mean..." when there's not a clear answer and it actually matters, or otherwise seek the kind of helpful, positive, proactive, work-as-a-team, community-focused solutions I've not seen from Bizarro World.

Also, just putting this out there,



I think its far more likely that she does it to everyone and I am simply not paying attention when I am not the target.

I find this statement quite iconic of the problems endemic to these tales.

1 To further muddy the waters, "down" can also mean "depressed", so "I'm down" could have meant to communicate, "I'm depressed about the current state of my character", without indicating their current combat readiness.

[Wintermoot]

So, here is what I thinking you pictured happening:

GM: Talakeal, monster uses his first attack and hits you for X damage.
Me: I am down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his second attack and hits Johnny for Y damage.
Johnny: I am not down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his third attack and hits Feur for Z damage.
Me: Ok, on my turn I heal myself and get back up.
GM: Wait... I thought you said you were unconscious?
Me: No, I was down, but I am still fully capable of acting.
GM: Well, hold on there, then the monster is going to keep attacking you rather than switching targets. Apply Y and Z damage to yourself.
Me: What? How dare you! The forums will hear about this!


What actually happened (as best as I can remember):

GM: Monster attacks Jonny for X damage, Johnny for Y damage, and Talakeal for Z damage.
Me: Well, I'm down!*
GM: Proceeds to have the monster's minions fight.
Us: Roll a bunch of AoEs and damage shields.
Bod: Takes his turn.
Jonny: Takes his turn.
Feur: Takes his turn.
New Girl: Takes her turn.
Me: Is it my turn?
Party: Yes.
Me: Ok, well I am going to crawl....
GM: Rolls a bunch of dice.
GM: Talakeal, you take "unholy amount of damage"**
Me: What? That will kill me. What the heck is going on?
GM: Well, if he knew you were going to continue fighting him, he would have finished you off instead of splitting his attacks.
Me: Wait, are you asking permission to go back and take a do over based on my actions this round because you forgot my Willpower was higher than my Endurance?
GM: I am sorry, I didn't realize I needed your "permission". Fine then,
GM: Ok then, so on the bosses turn he goes to attack. New girl, do I have your *permission* to attack you? LOL!
Me: What the hell just happened...?

* And to be perfectly honest, I am not sure if I even used the word "down". I might have said out, dying, at zero, that's it for me, etc.
**: The damage I took was way more than Johnny and Feur took the previous round. He might have rolled a critical, or he might have also rerolled my initial damage and added it on, I am not sure and its pretty tangential.


You continue to change the narrative over and over again, then cast the blame for all of us misunderstanding you on us instead of yourself.

To be as clear as I can. Here's what I *think* happened.

During our game this week we were fighting a monster. It attacked me, dropped me to 0 HP, I declared I was down. The monster then proceeded to take the rest of its attacks on the rest of the party, all of the other monsters took their turns, and then my allies took their turns. When initiative count got around to me, I said I was drinking a healing potion and backing off. The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious.
The GM said "Oh, ok then. How about if the boss attacks you for X damage?"
I was confused as heck about what happened, and then said "I guess, I would be dead?"
"Ok, then you are dead."
Still confused, I asked, "Wait, are you asking if its ok if we rewind time back to the boss' last turn and he attacks me twice and kills my character?"
The DM then said that he wasn't aware that he needed my permission, told me never mind, and went back to play as normal. But was very salty for the rest of the day, and several times he and the other players had a laugh at my expense because he would ask the other player's permission before attacking their character.


Do you know why I think that's what happened? Because that was your first narrative of what happened in your own language.

Only now, posts later, do you continue to carve, hack and change the narrative in the face of unrelenting pushback of your own culpability and responsibility. Now your new narrative is SO incredibly dissimilar to your first narrative, how are we supposed to give you any credence? Your versions of reality change so completely, I can no longer even guess what really happened.

Normally, I try to be nicer than this, but you've already attacked me personally in this thread in language that -should- have merited moderation.

Based on your initial narrative you were in the wrong. Based on your new narrative the responsibility and blame is shared, but it still originated with you and your communication failure. What -should- have happened (based on your new narrative being truthful) is what Quertus has said. Calm, rational people stopping the play, figuring out what the disconnect was, and fixing it. In this case I would have liked to have seen something like

GM: Monster attacks Jonny for X damage, Johnny for Y damage, and Talakeal for Z damage.
Me: Well, I'm down!*
GM: Proceeds to have the monster's minions fight.
Us: Roll a bunch of AoEs and damage shields.
Bod: Takes his turn.
Jonny: Takes his turn.
Feur: Takes his turn.
New Girl: Takes her turn.
Me: Is it my turn?
Party: Yes.
Me: Ok, well I am going to crawl....
DM: you can't crawl anywhere, you said you were down.
Me: Oh, I meant that I was -insert whatever confusing term your system uses in place of standard unconscious/disabled/dead/just really really hurt-
DM: well I thought you meant you were completely disabled. If I had known you could still act, the monster or its minions would've continued to attack you to make sure you couldn't continue to fight.
Me: Oh, well what does everyone else think
Bod: I agree with the DM
Jonny: I don't care
Feur: I agree with you
New Girl: I agree with whatever inconveniences Talakeal the most because I despise him so.
Me: Well what should we do here then?
DM: Let's just keep going, but in the future I'd like you to be clearer about what your state is so we don't have more confusion
Me:Okay well when I say "i'm down" I always mean I'm just really really hurt and continuing to fight would be suicide, so I don't want to fight anymore."
DM: Yeah. No. Say that then instead of "i'm down".
Me: Okay, I crawl away and drink a potion.
DM: Ok then, so on the bosses turn he goes to attack...


Because that's what regular table communication looks like.

[ngilop]

My whole life, one thing that has remained consistent it: the truth is the truth is the truth, no matter how many times it is told, or to which person is it told to. If the story keeps changing, it is probably not the truth.


In regards to the sport analogy. In football, if a player is down, that play is over and can no longer be continued as is. If the said player were to then suddenly run into the endzone the referee (which is what a GM really is in most ways) would rewind that back. If the player went all pikachu shocked face (i think that is the terminology in today's world) and say "different definition of down" everybody would likewise say "but, that is the definition the rest of us go by"

You tend to bring up a lot of apples to oranges, goal post shifting, false dilemma, tu quoque, maybe even the texas sharpshooter.. though that one for me is a bit harder to pick out that others.

[Willie the Duck]

As something that falls outside of the rules, it is something that can be done by anyone (PC, NPC, the setting as a whole) only with table buy-in.

I honestly can't think of any game that comes right out and says "the GM does whatever they want without limit" although some people have readings of certain rule books that go this way.

Most games either say the table can implement a house rule, or that the GM has the authority when it comes to resolving vague or contradictory rules, but that isn't what happened here, the rules of the game were perfectly clear and gives no provision for a "ret-con" or "take-back".

I agree that this is something the rulebooks do not cover. However, your second point suggests a leaning towards the rules (that since it gives no provision to ret-cons or take-backs, that suggests those are not part of the game. I do not believe there is a lean one way or the other. You are correct, the rules of the game give no provision for "ret-cons," but that is because the rules are silent on most meta-rules. The game rules don't mention what happens when a rolled dice falls in a crevice and isn't distinctly one number or the other), or what happens if a player has an emergency and has to step away from the table, or what happens if there is an actual language/hearing discrepancy from what someone says and what another person hears. This is a secondary set of procedural process that the game rules don't cover (some games do, usually games like competitive chess where the 'rules of chess' and the 'rules of playing chess in this environment' both have to be rigorously defined, because so much is riding on the outcome). For that reason, I don't think the rules giving no provision for them is evidential advocacy by the authors one way or the other. I do think it is strong advocacy for the importance of session zeroes and table buy-in. This is the kind of thing everyone should know ahead of time whether it is going to happen and under what circumstances (hopefully examples will suffice as opposed to legalese, but I guess it depends on the table trust level).

[Talakeal]

You tend to bring up a lot of apples to oranges, goal post shifting, false dilemma, tu quoque, maybe even the texas sharpshooter.. though that one for me is a bit harder to pick out that others.

Two things:

First, is there a name for the fallacy where you fixate on some small and mostly irrelevant detail of a story to discredit the account as a whole? Because I feel like that is a lot of what is happening here. I remember my dad used to do that all the time growing up. Like, one time he cornered me and went off on a profane tirade, and when I went to my mom I told her "he just sat there saying the most awful things", and then he was able to defuse the situation by saying "clearly he is lying, after all, he said I was sitting there, when clearly I was standing!".

Second, and more relevant, what exactly do you think my goal is with all of these lies and fallacies? Like, what point am I arguing? It seems that everyone here has it in their heads (and correct me if I am wrong) that the whole situation was caused by my imprecise use of the word "down" and that I am now trying to change my story to avoid taking the blame for misleading my DM for saying down? But that's just my guess, as I said I never anticipated this thread going in this direction at all.

But again, I swear on my dice bag over the bones of Gary Gygax that the word "down" was not the issue. Everybody in my gaming group uses "down" casually all the time, and nobody at my table, not me, not the GM, not the other players, was confused by it.



snip

I am sorry.

I already said, my initial post was meant as a brief summary using D&D language, if I had realized the direction the thread would go, or that people would be misled by it, I would have written something longer and more precise. It was not my intention to deceive anyone, and I apologize that I did.

And further, I am sorry that I have upset you personally.

If you really feel that I am being so aggressive and dishonest, please just report the thread and move on. Getting into it with me isn't worth the stress it is causing either of us, and you don't want to risk your own record by responding in kind.

Genuinely, peace, hopefully we can have a productive conversation about something else in the future.

[Cygnia]

Just leave this group. Stop playing with them and martyring yourself over and over.

[NichG]

I'm going to ignore the specific play example, and talk only in generalities here.

There are, IMO, two distinct kinds of situations in which a retcon may occur. These determine for me what's reasonable as to who can call for a retcon and who can object.

- The first situation is when there has either been a rules mistake, a communication failure, or a legitimate misunderstanding of the situation. If the mistake is recent enough that no one else has committed to any risky resolution, revealed hidden information, or committed undue amount of time or effort that would have to be re-done, then anyone at the table should be able to unilaterally request a retcon. Player, GM, anyone. If someone has taken on some risk or revealed some information, or if play has generally moved on so it would involve a significant amount of time, those are legitimate reasons for someone else at the table to object to a retcon, in which case it should be discussed and a compromise should be reached. But if e.g. someone is saying 'I have a 18, does that hit?', the GM says 'no, you miss, and the enemy sets up for a counterattack', and they say 'oops, forgot my morale bonus from the bard, 20?', then it would be unreasonable IMO for the GM to object to that retcon. Similarly, if you flipped player and GM roles there, it would be unreasonable for the player to object to the GM retconning even if it was not in the player's advantage. This kind of retcon should be neutral in that it should not a priori favor the players or GM - it's there as part of the meta-level protocol to deal with the fact that the people at the table are not perfect machines able to exactly remember and implement all details of the rules at all times.

As far as veto power to object to the retcon, in general only those who have taken meaningful risk, revealed hidden information, or committed significant time should have a veto. Even among those, an exception would be if there is some indication that they were the one at fault for the misunderstanding or rules error (e.g. if this is a frequent occurrence, if it seems like they're intentionally making the error so they can manipulate this process to their benefit, etc). In that case, the rest of the table should basically come to a consensus about whether it's reasonable should that person want to veto. But this is only about objecting to a retcon - someone calling for a retcon on a rules error only when it's in their favor is fine, because (since anyone can call for a retcon for this kind of error) its someone else's job (e.g. the GM) to call for retcons when the mistake is not in their favor.

So for example, player A does something, the GM doesn't understand what player A was trying to achieve and runs it weirdly, player B can (immediately) say 'wait, that didn't make sense, wasn't there a table there? Lets retcon.' in which case there are no valid vetos and it should happen. If instead player B didn't notice until the next round, and Player C had succeeded in a save vs item destruction or something, then player C could veto the retcon but neither player A nor the GM could reasonably do so.

A violation of table norms can be considered 'a rules mistake' and often (but not always) belongs to this kind of retcon. For example, if the standard at the table is 'no PVP' and player A says 'my character steals from the party loot while everyone is sleeping', anyone at the table can point out 'no, that's PVP, your character cannot do that and remain a PC under your control'.

- The second situation is when the sequence of events which took place is unsatisfying, disruptive, intolerable, undesirable, etc for the continued enjoyment of the game. In this case, anyone can raise the possibility of a retcon, but it should require full table consensus to implement it - e.g. everyone has a veto, and the retcon doesn't happen if even one person isn't persuaded. Because of that, this sort of retcon is inherently not neutral - it will only be reasonable if its in everyone's favor in some sense, because even something like 'nah, I don't feel like it' is a reasonable veto position in this case.

These situations are very much not the same.

In either case, the norm should be to prefer but not require 'play on' over 'retcon' if at all possible. That is to say, all else equal, I find it better if people are willing to absorb small errors or inconsistencies and find a way to make it work, over e.g. the opposite norm of 'we will retcon until the sequence of events is rules-perfect', just from a point of view of how pleasant it is to play in the one case vs the other. So someone calling for (legitimate rules error) retcons constantly could reasonably be exposed to social pressure 'hey, these things don't matter, can we just play on? relax a bit' etc, even if that social pressure does not ultimately have a veto. Another way of putting it is, its everyone's responsibility to use that power to unilaterally call for a retcon in case of misunderstanding or error for things that are actually important to them or to the table, not just because they have that right. But each person has a presumption of agency over their own responsibility to the table to use those protocols well, e.g. the rest of the table can't reasonably say 'you have called for too many retcons, we'll refuse this one' without e.g. escalating to 'we don't want to play with you anymore unless you change this behavior' (no line-item 'forcing' of how a player or GM decides to use their agency in the table protocol, in other words).

Anyhow, its not like I write this out fully at any given table, but this roughly covers how I would judge a situation as reasonable or unreasonable.

I would not evaluate any particular situation at a particular table on things like this without actually hearing from all sides in their own words though, so I won't say anything about Talakeal's specific example.

[kyoryu]

I honestly can't think of any game that comes right out and says "the GM does whatever they want without limit" although some people have readings of certain rule books that go this way.

It's social dynamics. What the books say don't really matter.

Even if the book said "you can never retcon" that won't stop a GM from doing a retcon.

What will stop the GM from doing a retcon is if the players won't tolerate it and stop playing with the GM. No more, no less.

[Batcathat]

It seems that everyone here has it in their heads (and correct me if I am wrong) that the whole situation was caused by my imprecise use of the word "down" and that I am now trying to change my story to avoid taking the blame for misleading my DM for saying down? But that's just my guess, as I said I never anticipated this thread going in this direction at all.

As I believe has already been pointed out, it's probably less that everyone believes that and more that it's pretty much the only part of the discussion still alive, since while the details differ a bit there seems to be a solid consensus about your general question (pretty much "Yes, a GM can do that but it should be used sparingly and with buy-in from the players" with a side of "misunderstandings happen, but most groups would just quickly deal with it and move on without hard feelings").

[Zuras]

- The second situation is when the sequence of events which took place is unsatisfying, disruptive, intolerable, undesirable, etc for the continued enjoyment of the game. In this case, anyone can raise the possibility of a retcon, but it should require full table consensus to implement it - e.g. everyone has a veto, and the retcon doesn't happen if even one person isn't persuaded. Because of that, this sort of retcon is inherently not neutral - it will only be reasonable if its in everyone's favor in some sense, because even something like 'nah, I don't feel like it' is a reasonable veto position in this case.




Situations like this may not involve multiple veto points, depending on what exactly the issue is. The GM also has the power to decide that something violated the table charter or code of conduct and requires a retcon.

Technically that just transforms the situation to the first category by making “be excellent to each other” (or however you phrase your table charter) an actual game rule, though, so I guess your categories still fit.

[NichG]

Situations like this may not involve multiple veto points, depending on what exactly the issue is. The GM also has the power to decide that something violated the table charter or code of conduct and requires a retcon.

For me, violations of charter or code of conduct are the first type of situation, and at least for me, its reasonable for anyone at the table to insist on a retcon in that case, not just the GM.

The second type of situation requires unanimity because its violating promises that others at the table have been given, rather than enforcing promises that have already been made. So in the former case, everyone has already consented that things would go a certain way and the retcon is just repairing a deviation from that, whereas in the later case its a new agreement so everyone has to consent.

Of course, again, this is all just a definition of 'reasonableness', not a definition of 'how things must go'. Unreasonable things can and do happen at any given table. People hold unreasonable positions that are still relevant to them. But basically 'insisting past the limit of reasonableness' opens up the question 'do we actually really want to all play together, and can we do so harmoniously?' which is a different scale of stakes than the moment-to-moment running of the game. So e.g. if someone says 'yeah table protocol means that he gets a veto on whether we retcon this, but I really can't play without retconning this thing' then that opens the floor to things like 'okay, maybe we play without you' or 'okay, maybe we play without him' or 'okay, maybe we stop playing and do a new campaign' or so on.

[Talakeal]

I'm going to ignore the specific play example, and talk only in generalities here.

There are, IMO, two distinct kinds of situations in which a retcon may occur. These determine for me what's reasonable as to who can call for a retcon and who can object.

- The first situation is when there has either been a rules mistake, a communication failure, or a legitimate misunderstanding of the situation. If the mistake is recent enough that no one else has committed to any risky resolution, revealed hidden information, or committed undue amount of time or effort that would have to be re-done, then anyone at the table should be able to unilaterally request a retcon. Player, GM, anyone. If someone has taken on some risk or revealed some information, or if play has generally moved on so it would involve a significant amount of time, those are legitimate reasons for someone else at the table to object to a retcon, in which case it should be discussed and a compromise should be reached. But if e.g. someone is saying 'I have a 18, does that hit?', the GM says 'no, you miss, and the enemy sets up for a counterattack', and they say 'oops, forgot my morale bonus from the bard, 20?', then it would be unreasonable IMO for the GM to object to that retcon. Similarly, if you flipped player and GM roles there, it would be unreasonable for the player to object to the GM retconning even if it was not in the player's advantage. This kind of retcon should be neutral in that it should not a priori favor the players or GM - it's there as part of the meta-level protocol to deal with the fact that the people at the table are not perfect machines able to exactly remember and implement all details of the rules at all times.

As far as veto power to object to the retcon, in general only those who have taken meaningful risk, revealed hidden information, or committed significant time should have a veto. Even among those, an exception would be if there is some indication that they were the one at fault for the misunderstanding or rules error (e.g. if this is a frequent occurrence, if it seems like they're intentionally making the error so they can manipulate this process to their benefit, etc). In that case, the rest of the table should basically come to a consensus about whether it's reasonable should that person want to veto. But this is only about objecting to a retcon - someone calling for a retcon on a rules error only when it's in their favor is fine, because (since anyone can call for a retcon for this kind of error) its someone else's job (e.g. the GM) to call for retcons when the mistake is not in their favor.

So for example, player A does something, the GM doesn't understand what player A was trying to achieve and runs it weirdly, player B can (immediately) say 'wait, that didn't make sense, wasn't there a table there? Lets retcon.' in which case there are no valid vetos and it should happen. If instead player B didn't notice until the next round, and Player C had succeeded in a save vs item destruction or something, then player C could veto the retcon but neither player A nor the GM could reasonably do so.

A violation of table norms can be considered 'a rules mistake' and often (but not always) belongs to this kind of retcon. For example, if the standard at the table is 'no PVP' and player A says 'my character steals from the party loot while everyone is sleeping', anyone at the table can point out 'no, that's PVP, your character cannot do that and remain a PC under your control'.

- The second situation is when the sequence of events which took place is unsatisfying, disruptive, intolerable, undesirable, etc for the continued enjoyment of the game. In this case, anyone can raise the possibility of a retcon, but it should require full table consensus to implement it - e.g. everyone has a veto, and the retcon doesn't happen if even one person isn't persuaded. Because of that, this sort of retcon is inherently not neutral - it will only be reasonable if its in everyone's favor in some sense, because even something like 'nah, I don't feel like it' is a reasonable veto position in this case.

These situations are very much not the same.

In either case, the norm should be to prefer but not require 'play on' over 'retcon' if at all possible. That is to say, all else equal, I find it better if people are willing to absorb small errors or inconsistencies and find a way to make it work, over e.g. the opposite norm of 'we will retcon until the sequence of events is rules-perfect', just from a point of view of how pleasant it is to play in the one case vs the other. So someone calling for (legitimate rules error) retcons constantly could reasonably be exposed to social pressure 'hey, these things don't matter, can we just play on? relax a bit' etc, even if that social pressure does not ultimately have a veto. Another way of putting it is, its everyone's responsibility to use that power to unilaterally call for a retcon in case of misunderstanding or error for things that are actually important to them or to the table, not just because they have that right. But each person has a presumption of agency over their own responsibility to the table to use those protocols well, e.g. the rest of the table can't reasonably say 'you have called for too many retcons, we'll refuse this one' without e.g. escalating to 'we don't want to play with you anymore unless you change this behavior' (no line-item 'forcing' of how a player or GM decides to use their agency in the table protocol, in other words).

Anyhow, its not like I write this out fully at any given table, but this roughly covers how I would judge a situation as reasonable or unreasonable.

I would not evaluate any particular situation at a particular table on things like this without actually hearing from all sides in their own words though, so I won't say anything about Talakeal's specific example.

This is a very nice guideline. I will propose it to my table to see if we can formally adopt a process like this. Thanks!

[Zuras]

It's social dynamics. What the books say don't really matter.

Even if the book said "you can never retcon" that won't stop a GM from doing a retcon.

What will stop the GM from doing a retcon is if the players won't tolerate it and stop playing with the GM. No more, no less.

In practice, players making sad-puppy eyes at the GM is what stops them. GM horror stories seem to mostly come from tables where the GM figures the players won’t walk away regardless, and is correct.


For me, violations of charter or code of conduct are the first type of situation, and at least for me, its reasonable for anyone at the table to insist on a retcon in that case, not just the GM.


I agree that any player can raise the issue, but it’s ultimately the GM’s responsibility to implement the code of conduct (at least, if CoC violations happen on my watch I feel like I failed in my role as GM). In a healthy group there should normally be a “oh yeah, I think we crossed a line back there” consensus anyway.

[Talakeal]

In practice, players making sad-puppy eyes at the GM is what stops them. GM horror stories seem to mostly come from tables where the GM figures the players won’t walk away regardless, and is correct.

And vice versa.

[NichG]

I agree that any player can raise the issue, but it’s ultimately the GM’s responsibility to implement the code of conduct (at least, if CoC violations happen on my watch I feel like I failed in my role as GM). In a healthy group there should normally be a “oh yeah, I think we crossed a line back there” consensus anyway.

I'd say instead that it can be part of a GM's role to adjudicate if its ambiguous as to whether a code of conduct violation has occurred (just as the GM might be called on to adjudicate if its unclear whether a rules mistake has taken place). But since the GM is also subject to the code of conduct (and in some sense its much more important that the GM be subject to that than, say, the written rules of the game), I wouldn't give the GM ultimate responsibility for its implementation.

E.g. if the group agreed something like 'no torture', and the GM was starting something that was going towards a torture scene, I think it would be completely fair for the player to unilaterally say 'yeah, no, that doesn't happen'. In that case, while of course the GM could say 'no, it does happen' (just like, technically, any player has the physical ability to just ignore something the GM says and refuse to mark it down), the GM would not be being reasonable to do so, just as a player refusing to mark down damage from an enemy's blow would not be being reasonable.

What the word 'reasonable' is doing here is basically justifying escalation to higher stakes methods to resolve the impasse. For example, as a third party at the table (e.g. another player), what would be the situations where I would decide to help break up the game on behalf of another player even if the specific issue doesn't bother or effect me, versus the situations where I would not?

[gbaji]

I'd say this is also an artifact of the system: if 'down' is not defined and was used instead of specific term (incapacitated & dying), it could cause confusion. HP systems tend to have some issues in this, as opposed to wound-based systems. And of course, 20:20 battle vision applies for the OP's game, so that's another issue.

Yup. Game systems that have large HP pools (especially if they increase with level) and no real method to manage "injured but not out" situations tend to have problems. It's extremely hard to actually "disable" opponents without killing them, and equally hard for the GM to avoid killing PCs in difficult/close fights becuase of these mechanics. And this case illustrates this, in spades. This system appears to have total HPs, and some sort of injury mechanism, but allows for rolls to continue acting even if "badly injured", which is just a recipe for the GM to continue attacking PCs until they are all the way dead (such that not even Miracle Max can bring them back).


And yeah, if the issue was actually about the DM misunderstanding down, that would also be an example of careless phrasing.

Except that this is not just a case of you misphrasing things in this post here though. The issue very clearly was about the GM misunderstanding you. Otherwise, he would not have been surprised when you took an action to drink a potion the next round and said "I thought you were unconscious". Cleary, he believed your character was unconscious and therefore not able to take any actions at all.

I'm not really even interested in exactly what you said to the GM. The point is that there very clearly was a misunderstanding of the status of your character, and that this resulted in the GM doing something different than he would have done if he'd know the actual status of your character. Otherwise, there would have been no reason at all for him to even want to retcon the action to say that you were attacked another time for more damage.

The GM very cleary believed that had he known your character was still able to use a potion, he would have directed more attacks at your character that round. That's the entire reason for the retcon in the first place.


First, is there a name for the fallacy where you fixate on some small and mostly irrelevant detail of a story to discredit the account as a whole?

Except that this is not a small and mostly irrelevant detail. It's the key point. The GM believed that you were reporting to him that your character was no longer functional or able to do anything, including drinking a potion. When he later discovered that this was not the case, he felt that he had been mislead (whether intentional or not) and felt that he should have been able to direct attacks at your character and would have if he had know the actual status of your character.

Again. That's not a minor detail. That's the central issue here.



But again, I swear on my dice bag over the bones of Gary Gygax that the word "down" was not the issue. Everybody in my gaming group uses "down" casually all the time, and nobody at my table, not me, not the GM, not the other players, was confused by it.

Except that in this case, whatever language you used was clearly confusing to the GM because he quite clearly believed that you should not have been unable to drink a potion the next round. Right? Everything else is window dressing on this core fact.

And, as several people have pointed out (and I agree with) one of the valid reasons for retconing is when there is a misunderstanding where one of the players (which can include the GM) believes something about the game environment that is not true, and that their character would clearly have known was not true, and as a result directed their character to do something which they would not have, had they known the "actual truth".

This very clearly falls into that condition. Whether the GM should have done this is subject to debate. But you seem to be arguing that he should have had no reason at all, because there was no possiblity of miscommunication or misunderstanding. But clearly there was.



I already said, my initial post was meant as a brief summary using D&D language, if I had realized the direction the thread would go, or that people would be misled by it, I would have written something longer and more precise. It was not my intention to deceive anyone, and I apologize that I did.

It's not what you said in this thread though. Clearly, whatever you said at the table at the time made the GM think something about your character that was incorrect. He believed you were unconsious and therefore could not take any action, including drinking a potion. Otherwise, the reaction you described would not have happened.

Everything else flows from that fact. If you want to discuss the authority of GMs to retcon, start with "I miscommunicated my character's status to the GM, such that he believed my character was out of the fight and unable to act, even to heal themselves, when my character was actually able to recover by drinking a healing potion. The GM believes that he should have been able to retcon the previous round and direct additional attacks at my character to actually take him out of the fight. Do you guys think this is reasonable?"

That's the actual question here. And it's a valid one to discuss. But you keep looping back to denying that there was any miscommunication at all, when clearly there was.

[King of Nowhere]

If a GM actually told a player they lost their turn because they used casual imprecise language, I would consider them a jackass.

I don't believe the person who I was responding to actually does that in games he runs, I think he is merely stating it here for dramatic emphasis.

But on the of chance he does invent on the fly penalties for players speaking casually, then yeah, his table is a dystopian hellscape that I would never want to play at.

I haven't seen any answer suggesting that.
you seem to be taking anything in a "punishent" perspective. it's not. nor is there anything about casting blame. it's simply that someone did something stupid as a result of a misunderstanding, and therefore retconning that is reasonable.




Because I have never seen a game explicitly give this permission.

I honestly can't think of any game that comes right out and says "the GM does whatever they want without limit" although some people have readings of certain rule books that go this way.

Most games either say the table can implement a house rule, or that the GM has the authority when it comes to resolving vague or contradictory rules, but that isn't what happened here, the rules of the game were perfectly clear and gives no provision for a "ret-con" or "take-back".

again, this isn't a blank check for the dm. this is a specific situation with a specific reason.
it's also got nothing to do with rules - though a group may want to have some consistent guideline for this.



So, here is what I thinking you pictured happening:

GM: Talakeal, monster uses his first attack and hits you for X damage.
Me: I am down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his second attack and hits Johnny for Y damage.
Johnny: I am not down.
GM: Ok, monster uses his third attack and hits Feur for Z damage.
Me: Ok, on my turn I heal myself and get back up.
GM: Wait... I thought you said you were unconscious?
Me: No, I was down, but I am still fully capable of acting.
GM: Well, hold on there, then the monster is going to keep attacking you rather than switching targets. Apply Y and Z damage to yourself.
Me: What? How dare you! The forums will hear about this!


What actually happened (as best as I can remember):

GM: Monster attacks Jonny for X damage, Johnny for Y damage, and Talakeal for Z damage.
Me: Well, I'm down!*
GM: Proceeds to have the monster's minions fight.
Us: Roll a bunch of AoEs and damage shields.
Bod: Takes his turn.
Jonny: Takes his turn.
Feur: Takes his turn.
New Girl: Takes her turn.
Me: Is it my turn?
Party: Yes.
Me: Ok, well I am going to crawl....
GM: Rolls a bunch of dice.
GM: Talakeal, you take "unholy amount of damage"**
Me: What? That will kill me. What the heck is going on?
GM: Well, if he knew you were going to continue fighting him, he would have finished you off instead of splitting his attacks.
Me: Wait, are you asking permission to go back and take a do over based on my actions this round because you forgot my Willpower was higher than my Endurance?
GM: I am sorry, I didn't realize I needed your "permission". Fine then,
GM: Ok then, so on the bosses turn he goes to attack. New girl, do I have your *permission* to attack you? LOL!
Me: What the hell just happened...?

* And to be perfectly honest, I am not sure if I even used the word "down". I might have said out, dying, at zero, that's it for me, etc.
**: The damage I took was way more than Johnny and Feur took the previous round. He might have rolled a critical, or he might have also rerolled my initial damage and added it on, I am not sure and its pretty tangential.
if it went like that, the dm is abusing big time. if nothing else, he should remove the damage from the other guys to have a shred of justification. also, if he was willing to ignore you the moment you were down, he should roll the attacks one at a time.
your answer "Me: Wait, are you asking permission to go back and take a do over based on my actions this round because you forgot my Willpower was higher than my Endurance?" does not help, anyway. The dm can't remember everyone's stats, he certainly cannot be required to know if your willpower is higher than your endurance and the consequences for the game.
actually, if it did go down like that (and I don't think it did exactly, the exact words spoken were surely different, but let's analyze this for educational sake), that sentence would make yo the first to escalate. it sounds dismissive, and like "omg noob, you should remember everything at the table, and if you forgot something it's entirely your fault". the gm answer about needing your permission doesn't help, but as I said before, it's the kind of things where nobody at my table would worry about "permission"; we would worry about whether what happened in the previous turn made sense - and yes, we'd likely decide that the boss mistook you for dead, because it requires less rerolling.
in fact, the whole issue about who is guilty for what, who has to do what and who has permission for what reeks of burocracy. Hey, I just realized another reason I hate burocracy: when people stop talking like people trying to solve a common problem and start rule-lawyering to blame somebody else, that's extremely toxic behavior, and that's exactly what burocracy is about. and the whole focus you're putting on what the dm is "allowed" to do focuses on entirely the wrong things.
As I said, the dm is allowed to do what the group allows him to do. in a healty group, the dm rules by trust, the party goes along with his decisions because they trust his judgment, and the dm makes sensible calls and keeps earning trust. in a toxic group, everybody does whatever they can get away with, depending on how desperate the other people are to stay in the group and suffer to avoid problems.

actually, there were plenty of good answers to the question and the thread could have been closed a couple pages ago. you seem to be avoiding those answers in your replies.


* the exact term you used is irrelevant. it's not important who miscommunicated, merely that there was a miscommunication

[Talakeal]

Just leave this group. Stop playing with them and martyring yourself over and over.

Strongly considering it.

I just wish there was some reliable method to find new gaming groups.

Hopefully I will move next year to someplace closer to a gaming store and start over fresh.


It's social dynamics. What the books say don't really matter.

Even if the book said "you can never retcon" that won't stop a GM from doing a retcon.

What will stop the GM from doing a retcon is if the players won't tolerate it and stop playing with the GM. No more, no less.

True.

But this whole incident would never have been a, well, incident, if the DM hadn't thought I was cutting his authority out from under him by thinking it was a decision that needed to be made with the whole table in mind rather than DM fiat.


Yup. Game systems that have large HP pools (especially if they increase with level) and no real method to manage "injured but not out" situations tend to have problems. It's extremely hard to actually "disable" opponents without killing them, and equally hard for the GM to avoid killing PCs in difficult/close fights becuase of these mechanics. And this case illustrates this, in spades. This system appears to have total HPs, and some sort of injury mechanism, but allows for rolls to continue acting even if "badly injured", which is just a recipe for the GM to continue attacking PCs until they are all the way dead (such that not even Miracle Max can bring them back).

Except that this is not just a case of you misphrasing things in this post here though. The issue very clearly was about the GM misunderstanding you. Otherwise, he would not have been surprised when you took an action to drink a potion the next round and said "I thought you were unconscious". Cleary, he believed your character was unconscious and therefore not able to take any actions at all.

I'm not really even interested in exactly what you said to the GM. The point is that there very clearly was a misunderstanding of the status of your character, and that this resulted in the GM doing something different than he would have done if he'd know the actual status of your character. Otherwise, there would have been no reason at all for him to even want to retcon the action to say that you were attacked another time for more damage.

The GM very cleary believed that had he known your character was still able to use a potion, he would have directed more attacks at your character that round. That's the entire reason for the retcon in the first place.

Except that this is not a small and mostly irrelevant detail. It's the key point. The GM believed that you were reporting to him that your character was no longer functional or able to do anything, including drinking a potion. When he later discovered that this was not the case, he felt that he had been mislead (whether intentional or not) and felt that he should have been able to direct attacks at your character and would have if he had know the actual status of your character.

Again. That's not a minor detail. That's the central issue here.




Except that in this case, whatever language you used was clearly confusing to the GM because he quite clearly believed that you should not have been unable to drink a potion the next round. Right? Everything else is window dressing on this core fact.

And, as several people have pointed out (and I agree with) one of the valid reasons for retconing is when there is a misunderstanding where one of the players (which can include the GM) believes something about the game environment that is not true, and that their character would clearly have known was not true, and as a result directed their character to do something which they would not have, had they known the "actual truth".

This very clearly falls into that condition. Whether the GM should have done this is subject to debate. But you seem to be arguing that he should have had no reason at all, because there was no possibility of miscommunication or misunderstanding. But clearly there was.

It's not what you said in this thread though. Clearly, whatever you said at the table at the time made the GM think something about your character that was incorrect. He believed you were unconsious and therefore could not take any action, including drinking a potion. Otherwise, the reaction you described would not have happened.

Everything else flows from that fact. If you want to discuss the authority of GMs to retcon, start with "I miscommunicated my character's status to the GM, such that he believed my character was out of the fight and unable to act, even to heal themselves, when my character was actually able to recover by drinking a healing potion. The GM believes that he should have been able to retcon the previous round and direct additional attacks at my character to actually take him out of the fight. Do you guys think this is reasonable?"

That's the actual question here. And it's a valid one to discuss. But you keep looping back to denying that there was any miscommunication at all, when clearly there was.

That a misunderstanding occurred is not up for debate in my mind, I just have no idea what it was.

What I am getting defensive about is the idea that I used "unreasonable" language and am therefore to blame for the misunderstanding and deserve some sort of in game penalty for deceiving the DM (whether intentionally or not).

As has been mentioned before, pointing fingers doesn't solve problems. That language "I miscommunicated" vs. "There was a miscommunication" drastically changes the issue. Likewise, the idea about whether a retcon is appropriate in that specific situation is drastically different about whether or not the DM has the sole power to declare retcons as a standard principle.



Atleast, that was my understanding when I made the tread.

The GM's side of the story doesn't actually hinge on a misunderstanding. His version is, if I can paraphrase, that we have a "gentleman's agreement" that the monster won't finish off "downed" NPCs, but that said downed PC's won't try and provoke the monster and continuing to fight. And by asking if it was my turn yet, the GM jumped the gun and assumed that I was going to keep fighting until I was dead; and he felt that by doing that I was "breaking the gentleman's agreement" and therefore thought that it was only fair if he (retroactively) broke it first.



I haven't seen any answer suggesting that.
you seem to be taking anything in a "punishent" perspective. it's not. nor is there anything about casting blame. it's simply that someone did something stupid as a result of a misunderstanding, and therefore retconning that is reasonable.

I was specifically responding to:


Personally, if I were DMing I would have simply disallowed you taking any actions on your next turn, since if you tell me you’re down, that’s what happened, just like if you tell me you grab the cursed idol or say you press the big red button that says “do not touch”.

This absolutely reads to me as inventing rules to punish the player for casually using imprecise language (with the inference that the GM thinks the player is actively trying to trick them).


actually, there were plenty of good answers to the question and the thread could have been closed a couple pages ago. you seem to be avoiding those answers in your replies.

This is fair.

I was surprised, confused, and not entirely upset by my character being killed off out of nowhere for reasons I was (and still am) struggling to comprehend, I probably didn't use the most careful language.

I totally agree pointing fingers, especially on a forum discussion not directly involving the original people, doesn't help.


actually, there were plenty of good answers to the question and the thread could have been closed a couple pages ago. you seem to be avoiding those answers in your replies.

There are. I especially like Kyoru's.

But, yeah, the squeaky wheel get's the kick, and I am certainly quicker to respond to something I disagree with or am offended by than simply saying "Good point, I agree."

[Quertus]

As has been mentioned before, pointing fingers doesn't solve problems.

This is a common misconception. Figuring out who was the criminal is kinda important in a murder investigation, no? Similarly, if you don't know what went wrong, you can't make improvements going forwards. The first step to solving a problem is to identify the problem. Used correctly, finger pointing is an essential component of problem solving.


What I am getting defensive about

Getting defensive is a choice. Choose differently.


What I am getting defensive about is the idea that I used "unreasonable" language and am therefore to blame for the misunderstanding

You did use unclear language. There shouldn't be any doubt on this point.

Nowhere in your tale did you directly give the GM any info about your character's state, clear or otherwise. If your account is complete and accurate, and your character changed state in a meaningful way, there shouldn't be any doubt that the lack of informing the GM of that state change, forcing them to gain their information from a comment made to another player, also contributed to the GM's inability to correctly roleplay the monsters based on their perceptions, and thereby also contributed to this problem. If that detail is simply missing from your account, and the GM's interpretation was simply tainted by your casual comment, then there's still a "precision of language" issue, but it takes on a different light.

Then there's the specific issue of calling your new state "down". By social convention, that is an unacceptable term to use for that state. Because social convention isn't science, I cannot say that there can be no doubt that you should have known better. In fact, "down" can be a reserved word in some RPGs, with a different meaning than that taken from social convention. Still (short of abusing your power as system designer to make "down" a reserved word in Heart of Darkness (don't do that)), the only valid response is for this to be a "lesson learned", that for this group (and the Playground, and Google), that word does not mean what you think it means, and you should adjust your behavior moving forwards.


and deserve some sort of in game penalty for deceiving the DM (whether intentionally or not).

That's up to the group's social dynamics. I tend to favor Simulationist thinking, and tend to be against in-game solutions to out-of-game problems, so I can't exactly agree with that. An out of game, "here's the door" penalty, sure. But in game penalties for out of game problems seems... remedial at best. Of course, in a different context, like a MtG tournament, yeah, the judges absolutely can and do punish players for misstating / misrepresenting the game state. But, even then, making that an in-game punishment would feel like abuse of power.

That said, retconning that the monster attacked you a) instead of someone else b) because it would have known that you were not "down" is not an in-game penalty. It's just a proper retcon to preserve the simulation.

What I read you to say that the GM did, however, just sounded dumb. But I'm not sure how much of that is what they actually did, vs how you perceived it and how you're communicating it.

So, can the GM retcon? Yes, but it's nuclear. Can the group retcon? Yes, and, in the case of a miscommunication, they should retcon - that is the correct tool for the job. Can the GM punish the player for mis-stating game state? Yes. Should that punishment be in-game? No.


Hopefully I will move next year to someplace closer to a gaming store and start over fresh.

Wow. I had honestly given up hope that you'd ever find a new group. Good luck! :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

This is a common misconception. Figuring out who was the criminal is kinda important in a murder investigation, no? Similarly, if you don't know what went wrong, you can't make improvements going forwards. The first step to solving a problem is to identify the problem. Used correctly, finger pointing is an essential component of problem solving.

Figuring out who the criminal is sure. But as the last thread pointed out, the person who is the criminal and the person who is responsible can vary drastically (in that case the analogy was the car thief or the guy who leaves his car unlocked).


Then there's the specific issue of calling your new state "down". By social convention, that is an unacceptable term to use for that state. Because social convention isn't science, I cannot say that there can be no doubt that you should have known better. In fact, "down" can be a reserved word in some RPGs, with a different meaning than that taken from social convention. Still (short of abusing your power as system designer to make "down" a reserved word in Heart of Darkness (don't do that)), the only valid response is for this to be a "lesson learned", that for this group (and the Playground, and Google), that word does not mean what you think it means, and you should adjust your behavior moving forwards.

I still disagree.

Maybe it is a regional dialect thing?

All of my players, my GM, myself, my brother, and both of my parents all agree that in that context "down" would mean injured.

My group says down constantly. There has never been any confusion about it in any game I have ever been in. At least, none that has ever been brought to my attention.

This is purely some disconnect between how language is used in my area and the majority of forumites.

Also, you say google, I did a search for sports terms, and absolutely "down" means injured in common parlance for sports.


Nowhere in your tale did you directly give the GM any info about your character's state, clear or otherwise. If your account is complete and accurate, and your character changed state in a meaningful way, there shouldn't be any doubt that the lack of informing the GM of that state change, forcing them to gain their information from a comment made to another player, also contributed to the GM's inability to correctly roleplay the monsters based on their perceptions, and thereby also contributed to this problem. If that detail is simply missing from your account, and the GM's interpretation was simply tainted by your casual comment, then there's still a "precision of language" issue, but it takes on a different light.

The GM rolled all of the dice for all of the attacks, and then doled out damage to each of three players, as he had been doing for the entire fight.

After he was done rolling and assigning damage, I told the other player's that I was at zero HP (or down, or out, or something of that nature).

There was never a situation where my character's status changed, the GM gave me the chance to report the status change, and then changed future actions based on the information.

Are you saying that it is the player's responsibility to give the GM precise status reports about their character unprompted?

[King of Nowhere]

But this whole incident would never have been a, well, incident, if the DM hadn't thought I was cutting his authority out from under him by thinking it was a decision that needed to be made with the whole table in mind rather than DM fiat.

this would depend on the table and the specific circumstance.
in any case, it's generally a good idea to discuss things with the players. At my table, when we realize a misunderstanding happened, we stop and try to figure out a solution. Generally the one that makes sense in game but requires the least amount of retcon.
I'm not even sure what I would have the power to actually do at my table, since my players trust me enough that if I propose something, they generally go for it, and if they don't, I generally accept their requests. it's not like we ever set up rules for it, because we don't need them.

This is a common misconception. Figuring out who was the criminal is kinda important in a murder investigation, no? Similarly, if you don't know what went wrong, you can't make improvements going forwards.
those are two different concepts. one thing is figuring out the mistake to avoid it in the future. quite another is figuring out the offender for punishment.
a misunderstanding in game is certainly no reason for punishment of anyone, but it is a reason for trying to be more clear in the future.

[KorvinStarmast]

During our game this week we were fighting a monster. It attacked me, dropped me to 0 HP, I declared I was down. The monster then proceeded to take the rest of its attacks on the rest of the party, all of the other monsters took their turns, and then my allies took their turns. When initiative count got around to me, I said I was drinking a healing potion and backing off. The GM said "I thought you were unconscious? To which I replied no, I am dying, but still conscious.
The GM said "Oh, ok then. How about if the boss attacks you for X damage?"
I was confused as heck about what happened, and then said "I guess, I would be dead?"
"Ok, then you are dead."
Still confused, I asked, "Wait, are you asking if its ok if we rewind time back to the boss' last turn and he attacks me twice and kills my character?"
The DM then said that he wasn't aware that he needed my permission, told me never mind, and went back to play as normal. But was very salty for the rest of the day, and several times he and the other players had a laugh at my expense because he would ask the other player's permission before attacking their character.


Confusing anecdote aside, do you think it is within the GM's power to rewind or retcon the game? I know a lot of people say the GM's right to make ruling or to fudge dice is absolute, but I have never had a GM want to actually turn back the game to the previous turn like that except in the case of a big rules mistake or critical misunderstanding on a player's part, and even then it has always been sort of a "whole table" decision.
I love this post.
You make loads of posts complaining about your players.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I am not sure if you are aware of what you did: you engaged in the meta game of "try to pull a fast one on the GM".
The GM became a bit cross when he figured out that you did that.
Human nature, 101.

[gbaji]

That a misunderstanding occurred is not up for debate in my mind, I just have no idea what it was.

What I am getting defensive about is the idea that I used "unreasonable" language and am therefore to blame for the misunderstanding and deserve some sort of in game penalty for deceiving the DM (whether intentionally or not).

As has been mentioned before, pointing fingers doesn't solve problems. That language "I miscommunicated" vs. "There was a miscommunication" drastically changes the issue. Likewise, the idea about whether a retcon is appropriate in that specific situation is drastically different about whether or not the DM has the sole power to declare retcons as a standard principle.

Ok. Fair enough. Let's go with "there was a miscommunication" then. At the end of the day though, the GM thought one thing about your characters status, and you thought something differently. The GM believes that had he known the correct status of your character, he would have done something differently with his NPCs, and believes that he should be able to retcon those NPC actions to account for it. It doesn't matter if the GM believed you were deliberatly misleading him, or it was just an honest miscommunication, the same potential for retcon does exist and is valid.

As several people have posted (and I happen to agree) one of the most common reasons to allow a retcon is when a player has a false perception of what is going on in the game world, and that false perception leads them to take an action with a character that they would have done differently if they had known the truth. This clearly falls into that category. Whether the GM actually *should* do so in this situation is another matter entirely. Personally, I would just move on as the GM in a situation like this. I will point out, however, that if this sort of thing seemed to be happening frequently with a specific player, I would become frustrated with this behavior and might think to take steps to rectify that. I can't say that this is what was happening here. Could just be an overbearing GM. But that's pretty much the only condition in which *I* would take the action he took.



The GM's side of the story doesn't actually hinge on a misunderstanding. His version is, if I can paraphrase, that we have a "gentleman's agreement" that the monster won't finish off "downed" NPCs, but that said downed PC's won't try and provoke the monster and continuing to fight. And by asking if it was my turn yet, the GM jumped the gun and assumed that I was going to keep fighting until I was dead; and he felt that by doing that I was "breaking the gentleman's agreement" and therefore thought that it was only fair if he (retroactively) broke it first.

This is also the first time in this thread that you are mentioning this gentleman's agreement, so you can see why no one has taken it into account when responding.

This is kind of a strange agreement to have at a game table IMO. Not that I don't use something similar, but that the GM assumes that a PC will retreat from combat if they are "downed" but able to use an action to recover is "odd". I guess the question here is: What would you have done the round after taking the potion to heal yourself? Would you have rejoined the battle? I would assume "yes". Maybe I'm wrong here, but I would expect that if a PC has recovered from injuries and his fellow party members are still engaged in a tough fight, that of course that PC will rejoin the fight. Why wouldn't they?

I typically do choose to have NPCs cease attaking PCs once they are "down", but not because of some kind of agreement, but simply because most people, once they fall in battle, don't get back up again. They are no longer threats to the NPC, so while other threats still exist, they will engage with those instead. The assumption being that the default behavior, which works 99% of the time, will fail because the PCs are exceptional enough opponents that they will be able to heal themselves and get back up, and resume fighting. And yeah, this also gives me an excuse as a GM to not just slaughter the PCs when they get a spot of bad luck.

And that often applies to PCs as well. Most players, when their opponent drops, will also assume said opponent will not be getting up again, and will continue on to other opponents. They'll only pay particular attention if that NPC gets back up maybe (showing an ability to recover from this), and *then* they'll take extra time to "finish it off" the next time. So this isn't so much some kind of "gentleman's agreement" as "this is a sensible choice to make, right up until it's not". Again, I was not privvy to the exact sequence of events that occurred at that table at that time, but if the GM felt like he should have or would have done something differently, then it's a good bet that he had a reason for thinking that.

Maybe try asking him why that was? And yeah. Maybe that's not going to work well. Egos. Defense mechanisms. Whatever. Honestly, like I mentioned a bit earlier, sometimes you just have to drop stuff like this and move on. There's no actual victory condition for continuing the argument at a certain point. And as I've also touched on before, you can't actually change other people (you can suggest, request, etc, but it's always their choice). You can only change your own actions. Sometimes, you have to make a choice to just accept the other person's behavior/actions/choices as they are and adjust your behavior to account for it, or just not (ie: leave the situation entirely). Continuing to butt heads against the other person in a situation like this isn't going to be terribly effective IME.

[Talakeal]

I love this post.
You make loads of posts complaining about your players.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I am not sure if you are aware of what you did: you engaged in the meta game of "try to pull a fast one on the GM".
The GM became a bit cross when he figured out that you did that.
Human nature, 101.

I am well aware that most of the posters think I did.

Neither my GM nor I feel that way.

The deception doesn't really work with my ruleset of the vernacular that our group uses.

[Kish]

I don't think you lied to anyone--not to your gaming group, and not to people here.

I do have unsolicited advice for future threads here.

In the interests on not getting a thread like this one again, make sure a thread you're starting has all and only the information you want feedback on--accurate information, not substitutions. That should, if applicable, include things like "here I don't remember the term I used but it communicated that I was badly hurt."

Here, as far as I can tell, you were aiming to post what amounted to, "if the GM says 'actually my monster did a ton more damage to you last round than I said then, you're dead,' that's outrageous, right?"

Which would probably have gotten a bunch of "Yep!" and some "Talakeal, you really need to drop out of that group."

But instead you threw in a lot more stuff that you actively didn't want feedback on, where you had substituted 3.5 terminology for what actually happened in a way that made it look like you'd lied to the GM.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am well aware that most of the posters think I did.

Neither my GM nor I feel that way.

The deception doesn't really work with my ruleset of the vernacular that our group uses.
Then why are you coming here to discuss what happened?
Your issue can only be solved at your table, particularly since you are, as a group, using a game whose rule set are a product of your own efforts.
(I tip my cap to you for the time and effort it takes to hack together your own system-not a trivial effort).

[Talakeal]

Then why are you coming here to discuss what happened?
Your issue can only be solved at your table, particularly since you are, as a group, using a game whose rule set are a product of your own efforts.
(I tip my cap to you for the time and effort it takes to hack together your own system-not a trivial effort).

To me, the point of contention was about whether or not I had "tricked" the GM (I already know that wasn't my intention) but rather the GM's confidence that part of being the game master was the ability to rewind the scene without needing table buyin.

[KorvinStarmast]

the ability to rewind the scene without needing table buy in. I think that you have incorrectly framed, or understood, how small group dynamics usually works in a TTRPG.

I think that you need to go back a few steps.

Describe, in your own words, the social contract that exists at your table.

[Talakeal]

I think that you have incorrectly framed, or understood, how small group dynamics usually works in a TTRPG.

I think that you need to go back a few steps.

Describe, in your own words, the social contract that exists at your table.

At my table specifically?

[ngilop]

So... i spent most of the day reading all these 'horror sessions' the OP posts all the time.


I refuse to beleive that anybody is that full of bad luck to have every group turn out so bad for them.


Normally, if you encounter the same issue every group you are a part it... (I do not mean just game group either) there is only one connecting thread between all of them.. and that is you.

[OldTrees1]

Once upon a time Alice and Bob played a chess match by phone. Alice is remote and Bob has the canonical chess board in front of them.

Alice: 1 d3
Miscommunication occurs Bob receives "Alice: 1 e4"
Bob: 1 .. d5
Alice: 2 f4
Bob: 2 .. d5 takes e4
Alice: Wait, I don't have a pawn on e4. My first move was 1 d3
Miscommunication occurs Bob receives "Alice: 1 g4"
Bob: Oh let me fix my board then. 1 g4 d5 2 f4 Qh4 checkmate.
Alice: Wait why do you get to retcon your 2nd move without asking permission? Be default it should be 2 .. d4 as the only legal move for the d pawn.
For the next hour Bob and Charlie tease Alice about their question.
1 week later Alice: I just talked to Bob and realized they heard my opening move was 1 g4. They jumped the gun a bit with their 2 .. Qh4.

Clearly both players agreed to retcon d5 takes e4 when Alice wanted to clarify their opening move was not e4 and Bob accepted that as reason enough to fix the game state.

Clearly the game still was subject to miscommunication that was only cleared up a week later (assuming Alice recognizes there were 2 miscommunications that game).

Yes, retcons can happen to fix miscommunications.

Try to avoid miscommunications while fixing a miscommunication.

Try to avoid miscommunications when describing a miscommunication to others. (I suspect I am making that mistake now.) In this case I am using Alice, Bob, and Charlie (from computer science message acknowledgement examples) to run through a miscommunication and retcon. This example is similar to but not an exact translation of the OP's latest narrative. Oh and pardon the bad chess moves, it is not indicative of anything. The moves were chosen to construct the reveals of consequences of the miscommunications.

[Quertus]

those are two different concepts. one thing is figuring out the mistake to avoid it in the future. quite another is figuring out the offender for punishment.
a misunderstanding in game is certainly no reason for punishment of anyone, but it is a reason for trying to be more clear in the future.

If your “correctional” facilities correct the problem, perhaps via Mindrape, then those two concepts converge, and become the same thing. :smallsmile:

I’m not a fan of the concept of “punishment”, per se. I much prefer to fix problems: debug defective code, replace defective hardware, Mindrape defective organic units, etc. Obviously, less “nuclear” options exist as well.

Point being, to me, those are not two different concepts. But I can see how others with a different outlook might consider them such.

[Keltest]

If your “correctional” facilities correct the problem, perhaps via Mindrape, then those two concepts converge, and become the same thing. :smallsmile:

I’m not a fan of the concept of “punishment”, per se. I much prefer to fix problems: debug defective code, replace defective hardware, Mindrape defective organic units, etc. Obviously, less “nuclear” options exist as well.

Point being, to me, those are not two different concepts. But I can see how others with a different outlook might consider them such.

Irrespective of anything else, can we please not refer to persuading people to a specific way of thinking as Mindrape? I know its a D&D reference, I don't think its going to do anything besides bog down the conversation in a direction that will get the threat locked.

[Rynjin]

Irrespective of anything else, can we please not refer to persuading people to a specific way of thinking as Mindrape? I know its a D&D reference, I don't think its going to do anything besides bog down the conversation in a direction that will get the threat locked.

I mean...it's the actual, literal name of the spell being used for the purpose. (https://dnd.arkalseif.info/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/mindrape--165/index.html) Would you prefer to go full zoomer and say "Mindr*pe" instead so we don't get demonetized? "Mindsexualassault"?

[Talakeal]

So... i spent most of the day reading all these 'horror sessions' the OP posts all the time.


I refuse to beleive that anybody is that full of bad luck to have every group turn out so bad for them.


Normally, if you encounter the same issue every group you are a part it... (I do not mean just game group either) there is only one connecting thread between all of them.. and that is you.



Getting defensive is a choice. Choose differently.

I'll do my best Quertus.


You went back and read all of my threads in one day? That's some dedication!

Please understand though, that this is the worst from 25 years worth of biweekly games, its hardly every group.

And as I said in the last thread, while this is a pithy insult (and no doubt there is an element of truth to it); the problem player's behavior before and after my game and the fact that they have similar (if not worse) reactions to people in other groups is enough to tell me that this isn't true.

Very tempted to link my former player Dave's blog here so you can see the sort of thing I am dealing with :P


I don't think you lied to anyone--not to your gaming group, and not to people here.

I do have unsolicited advice for future threads here.

In the interests on not getting a thread like this one again, make sure a thread you're starting has all and only the information you want feedback on--accurate information, not substitutions. That should, if applicable, include things like "here I don't remember the term I used but it communicated that I was badly hurt."

Here, as far as I can tell, you were aiming to post what amounted to, "if the GM says 'actually my monster did a ton more damage to you last round than I said then, you're dead,' that's outrageous, right?"

Which would probably have gotten a bunch of "Yep!" and some "Talakeal, you really need to drop out of that group."

But instead you threw in a lot more stuff that you actively didn't want feedback on, where you had substituted 3.5 terminology for what actually happened in a way that made it look like you'd lied to the GM.


You know, I really am tempted to make a new thread about advice when summarizing.

My experience is that the longer a post is, the less attention it gets. At the same time, I find that most of the people on this forum are only familiar with D&D, especially 3E (although that might be changing over time) and even assume I am talking about D&D when I am not.

So I try and summarize my posts and use D&D terminology when possible to avoid endless footnotes and definitions.

But time and again, in the summation process I either leave out or use imprecise language for something I think is trivially important to the story as a whole but other people either fixate on or use to prove my dishonest (either implying that the story never happened or that I know I am at fault and am intentionally presenting a distorted version of the story to make my friends look bad).

Much like how if you only read the headline of a news article, or even the abstract of a scientific paper, you often get a totally different impression of events than if you actually read the body.

I really need to figure out some summary techniques to avoid this.


As far as the original story goes; both Brian and I were obviously misunderstanding the situation and both could have made an effort to communicate better. He and the new girl making fun of me for it was clearly immature bullying. But while bitching on the forum for sympathy isn't terrible, I really am not posting just for that, and this group really isn't worth abandoning over this one incident. But I thought a discussion of when and how it is appropriate to rewind the action and what the limits of the GM's authority when it comes to the "meta-game" could be pretty interesting and useful going forward for establishing table policy.


This is also the first time in this thread that you are mentioning this gentleman's agreement, so you can see why no one has taken it into account when responding.

This is kind of a strange agreement to have at a game table IMO. Not that I don't use something similar, but that the GM assumes that a PC will retreat from combat if they are "downed" but able to use an action to recover is "odd". I guess the question here is: What would you have done the round after taking the potion to heal yourself? Would you have rejoined the battle? I would assume "yes". Maybe I'm wrong here, but I would expect that if a PC has recovered from injuries and his fellow party members are still engaged in a tough fight, that of course that PC will rejoin the fight. Why wouldn't they?

I typically do choose to have NPCs cease attaking PCs once they are "down", but not because of some kind of agreement, but simply because most people, once they fall in battle, don't get back up again. They are no longer threats to the NPC, so while other threats still exist, they will engage with those instead. The assumption being that the default behavior, which works 99% of the time, will fail because the PCs are exceptional enough opponents that they will be able to heal themselves and get back up, and resume fighting. And yeah, this also gives me an excuse as a GM to not just slaughter the PCs when they get a spot of bad luck.

And that often applies to PCs as well. Most players, when their opponent drops, will also assume said opponent will not be getting up again, and will continue on to other opponents. They'll only pay particular attention if that NPC gets back up maybe (showing an ability to recover from this), and *then* they'll take extra time to "finish it off" the next time. So this isn't so much some kind of "gentleman's agreement" as "this is a sensible choice to make, right up until it's not". Again, I was not privvy to the exact sequence of events that occurred at that table at that time, but if the GM felt like he should have or would have done something differently, then it's a good bet that he had a reason for thinking that.

He didn't actually use the words "gentleman's agreement" that is why it is in quotation marks.

I didn't understand what the GM's perspective was, and I tried to talk to him after this thread descended into a quibble over the word down, and posted that he had forgotten most of what happened but thinks X several pages ago.

I mostly agree with you, and I generally don't have monsters attack downed players as it is not tactically sound (even if there is healing involved, its usually a better tactic to continue attacking up people for action economy reasons or just attack the healer directly), and because it isn't fun for anyone for a PC to have to roll up a new character. Sometimes, though, a player will stubbornly force a monster to continue attacking them*, at which point it is the only option, and the GM thought this is what was happening here, he admits he jumped the gun and assumed that is what I was about to do when I asked if it was my turn yet because I am playing a fairly stubborn and reckless character.

*In my system, if your damage exceeds your endurance score you can continue to act, but risk further injury or death by doing so, and if your damage exceeds your willpower you can continue to act if you pass resolve tests, so you can get into a situation where someone refuses to go down and acts as a sort of "human shield" at the risk of their own life.

[Cygnia]

So... i spent most of the day reading all these 'horror sessions' the OP posts all the time.


I refuse to beleive that anybody is that full of bad luck to have every group turn out so bad for them.


Normally, if you encounter the same issue every group you are a part it... (I do not mean just game group either) there is only one connecting thread between all of them.. and that is you.

I did suggest that in the last thread... *sips tea*

[KillianHawkeye]

He didn't actually use the words "gentleman's agreement" that is why it is in quotation marks.

You do understand that's literally the opposite of what quotation marks are supposed to represent, don't you? :smallconfused:

[Talakeal]

Your football analogy doesn’t really work. If a football player is “down”, then by rule the play is dead, and they can’t advance the ball or anything else. Similarly, most people (basically anyone mostly familiar with 5e D&D or Pathfinder) will interpret “down” in an RPG as literally “down” and no longer able to act without external intervention. To continue the football analogies, the DM thought you raised your hand for a fair catch, then took off running.

Personally, if I were DMing I would have simply disallowed you taking any actions on your next turn, since if you tell me you’re down, that’s what happened, just like if you tell me you grab the cursed idol or say you press the big red button that says “do not touch”.

You clearly had a miscommunication with the DM there, but given (as described) you were the one announcing “I’m down” rather than in response to the DM asking you, I can see why the DM was annoyed. They shouldn’t have picked on you the rest of the session, of course, but it seems like your group is really bad at resolving conflicts in general, so I’m not shocked they responded with passive-aggressive douchebaggery.

So, this may be the source of the confusion.

I come from a basketball family. My father and my brother are both huge basketball fans, played college ball, have worked as referees, and my brother is currently professional high school basketball coach.

I asked my brother and my father about this, and they both unequivocally said that is a player is "down" that means that they are injured.

Maybe I am just so used to basketball terminology that I am applying it to every game without questioning whether it is appropriate.


You do understand that's literally the opposite of what quotation marks are supposed to represent, don't you? :smallconfused:

No, not always. They can also be used to show skepticism or disdain for the term used. Man, English is a confusing mess.



Scare quotes

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history

Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the typographic practice. For the use of quotations and headlines to scare readers, see Scare-line.
For the use of scare quotes on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Scare quotes.
Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.[4] Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.[6] Whether quotation marks are considered scare quotes depends on context because scare quotes are not visually different from actual quotations. The use of scare quotes is sometimes discouraged in formal or academic writing.[7][8]

I suppose I am using it this way here because during the oft alluded to "shards of violence" encounter Bob kept insisting I broke the gentleman's agreement by killing off his followers even though such an agreement had never actually been spoken out loud and I was totally unaware that my players even thought one existed.

[gbaji]

I think you are getting too caught up on quibbling over the specific words used, and their meaning here or there or wherever. That's not reaally important.

I think your broad question has been answered (multiple times).

Q. When can a player or GM retcon/rewind something in a game?

A. When there was a misunderstanding of the real conditions in the game, such that a player (or GM) believed something was different than how it was, where the character they are playing should have known the "correct" condition, and which lead them to make a decision with that character that was not what they would have otherwise.

Whether the actual retcon/rewind should actually occur should be a matter of how critical the action was relative to how difficult the rewind may be. Something minor is probably not worth it. Something major and critical? Probably should be.

The other details and drama stuff? You'll have to figure that out yourself. One suggestion I would make is to be more clear and specific with your word choices. If you are actually "translating" to some other system and terms, then you need to translate correctly. Someone who is "down" in 3.x D&D is someone who is unable to take an action without someone else assisting them. If you didn't intend that interpretation then you should not have translated whatever was actually said into a term in another system that didn't actually correctly describe what you were speaking about.

When you do this, we're left with not only not knowing what words were actually said, but also handed an incorrect "translation" that we have to respond to. This is precisely what leads to these long threads where you have to continually clarify things and rephrase things. And when we get to the end, we discover that what was written in the OP was not remotely accurate to what you are later saying happened. That's at the least confusing, and at the most seems like deception on your part (not saying that's what you're intending, but it can be interpreted that way when from our pespective the story just keeps changing as the thread keeps going).

Be specific. Be clear. And when in doubt, write down the actual words/terminology that was used, not a translation. Worst case, we ask "what does that mean in game terms?" and you explain. I think most people don't have a problem with that. Using the wrong terminology entirely, from a different game system that isn't the one you are using? Far far more confusing.

[Talakeal]

I think you are getting too caught up on quibbling over the specific words used, and their meaning here or there or wherever. That's not reaally important.

I think your broad question has been answered (multiple times).

For sure.


The other details and drama stuff? You'll have to figure that out yourself. One suggestion I would make is to be more clear and specific with your word choices. If you are actually "translating" to some other system and terms, then you need to translate correctly. Someone who is "down" in 3.x D&D is someone who is unable to take an action without someone else assisting them. If you didn't intend that interpretation then you should not have translated whatever was actually said into a term in another system that didn't actually correctly describe what you were speaking about.

When you do this, we're left with not only not knowing what words were actually said, but also handed an incorrect "translation" that we have to respond to. This is precisely what leads to these long threads where you have to continually clarify things and rephrase things. And when we get to the end, we discover that what was written in the OP was not remotely accurate to what you are later saying happened. That's at the least confusing, and at the most seems like deception on your part (not saying that's what you're intending, but it can be interpreted that way when from our pespective the story just keeps changing as the thread keeps going).

Be specific. Be clear. And when in doubt, write down the actual words/terminology that was used, not a translation. Worst case, we ask "what does that mean in game terms?" and you explain. I think most people don't have a problem with that. Using the wrong terminology entirely, from a different game system that isn't the one you are using? Far far more confusing.

Yeah. I think, if I rewrote the OP now, I would translate it into the character being negative HP with the Diehard feat, as that is the closest thing in D&D.



Q. When can a player or GM retcon/rewind something in a game?

A. When there was a misunderstanding of the real conditions in the game, such that a player (or GM) believed something was different than how it was, where the character they are playing should have known the "correct" condition, and which lead them to make a decision with that character that was not what they would have otherwise.

Whether the actual retcon/rewind should actually occur should be a matter of how critical the action was relative to how difficult the rewind may be. Something minor is probably not worth it. Something major and critical? Probably should be.

The other details and drama stuff? You'll have to figure that out yourself. One suggestion I would make is to be more clear and specific with your word choices. If you are actually "translating" to some other system and terms, then you need to translate correctly. Someone who is "down" in 3.x D&D is someone who is unable to take an action without someone else assisting them. If you didn't intend that interpretation then you should not have translated whatever was actually said into a term in another system that didn't actually correctly describe what you were speaking about.

Yeah, but it isn't quite so simple.

A lot of the responses tended to feel like the blame was important. Was the misunderstanding due to a miscommunication or not? Who was to blame for the miscommunication? Was the miscommunication a deliberate attempt to mislead the DM? Etc.

That can have an impact on whether or not you should rewind, impose some further penalty, or about who gets a say in the process.

[Kish]

Yeah. I think, if I rewrote the OP now, I would translate it into the character being negative HP with the Diehard feat, as that is the closest thing in D&D.
*sigh* Okay, if you're going to insist on "translating," I fear my store will be short on sympathy next time when the thread inevitably becomes about whether the GM should have remembered all your feats/you had a responsibility to point out the Diehard feat.

This isn't complicated or ambiguous, man. Y'want advice about a specific situation, you describe that situation as accurately as you can. If you're going to deliberately and knowingly misreport what happened, y'might as well just go straight to, "These are the answers I want, please give them to me."

[KorvinStarmast]

At my table specifically? Yes. At your table specifically. :smallsmile:

I asked my brother and my father about this, and they both unequivocally said that is a player is "down" that means that they are injured.

Maybe I am just so used to basketball terminology that I am applying it to every game without questioning whether it is appropriate. If you use jargon that other people don't commonly use to infer a particular meaning, it can create misunderstandings, yes. (I spent a lot of years in military aviation, which has its own jargon for sure, and I have run into this with some frequency).

This isn't complicated or ambiguous, man. Y'want advice about a specific situation, you describe that situation as accurately as you can. If you're going to deliberately and knowingly misreport what happened, y'might as well just go straight to, "These are the answers I want, please give them to me." That's a nicer way of putting what I was going to say next, so I'll just thank you for saving me the effort. :smallcool:

[Talakeal]

*sigh* Okay, if you're going to insist on "translating," I fear my store will be short on sympathy next time when the thread inevitably becomes about whether the GM should have remembered all your feats/you had a responsibility to point out the Diehard feat.

This isn't complicated or ambiguous, man. Y'want advice about a specific situation, you describe that situation as accurately as you can. If you're going to deliberately and knowingly misreport what happened, y'might as well just go straight to, "These are the answers I want, please give them to me."

Seriously?

That seems kind of, petty and irrelevant.

Like, to use an OoTS example, if we are asking a question about whether or not Elan's father was morally justified in killing Nale, and I refer to Nale as a bard rather than a "multiclass fighter / rogue / sorcerer who specializes in enchantment spells" does that have anything at all to do with the answer you will give?

You say ""These are the answers I want, please give them to me." Are you actually saying that the ANSWERS to the questions "I am playing Heart of Darkness and the Gamekeeper wanted to call a do-over because they forgot my willpower was higher than my endurance and thus I could still act at negative HP with a risk of further damage, is this appropriate" vs. "I am playing 3.5 E Dungeons and Dragons and the Dungeon Master wanted to call a do-over because they forgot my character had the Diehard feat and could still act at negative HP with a risk of further damage, is this appropriate" will be different?

I mean, if someone is intentionally asking misleading questions to get the answers they want*, translating jargon and terminology is probably the least effective way to do this.


*: Not that there is any real reason to do this when asking for advice from strangers on the internet anyway; its not like this is some political debate where I can garner votes by misrepresenting my opponent's position to a third party or anything.

[Kish]

Are you actually saying that the ANSWERS to the questions "I am playing Heart of Darkness and the Gamekeeper wanted to call a do-over because they forgot my willpower was higher than my endurance and thus I could still act at negative HP with a risk of further damage, is this appropriate" vs. "I am playing 3.5 E Dungeons and Dragons and the Dungeon Master wanted to call a do-over because they forgot my character had the Diehard feat and could still act at negative HP with a risk of further damage, is this appropriate" will be different?

Yes of course I am. If you want an accurate answer you accurately describe the situation. Only if you assume that no one could possibly think anything different than you do--and therefore you might as well go straight to telling them what to say--is it appropriate to claim something happened that did not. It may seem "petty and irrelevant" to you to suggest that you accurately describe events, but it seems brain-breakingly obvious to me that you should not expect an accurate answer to an inaccurate description of events.


I mean, if someone is intentionally asking misleading questions to get the answers they want*, translating jargon and terminology is probably the least effective way to do this.


*: Not that there is any real reason to do this when asking for advice from strangers on the internet anyway; its not like this is some political debate where I can garner votes by misrepresenting my opponent's position to a third party or anything.
That's just because you're using the smile word "translating" for "claiming something happened that isn't what happened."

As I've said multiple times before, your group consistently sounds so utterly toxic that I think you should drop out of it; this is making me think, for the first time, that I really should have asked your group members for their sides before I made that judgment.

And as far as that footnote goes, what could you get from asking "can the GM do this?" here in any event? We're sure not going to be calling him up and telling him he can't, so....Validation. Which you made no bones about being quite upset you didn't get for the first few pages, when your "translation" had resulted in you claiming that you were "down" and the GM thought you were "unconscious," and everyone was coming down on the GM's side.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but next time you start one of these "the group I'm still bafflingly playing with did something nutty, this is nutty, right?" threads, my first question is going to be, "So, the events you describe: accurate or bowdlerized?"

[Talakeal]

Yes of course I am. If you want an accurate answer you accurately describe the situation. Only if you assume that no one could possibly think anything different than you do--and therefore you might as well go straight to telling them what to say--is it appropriate to claim something happened that did not. It may seem "petty and irrelevant" to you to suggest that you accurately describe events, but it seems brain-breakingly obvious to me that you should not expect an accurate answer to an inaccurate description of events.

That's just because you're using the smile word "translating" for "claiming something happened that isn't what happened."

As I've said multiple times before, your group consistently sounds so utterly toxic that I think you should drop out of it; this is making me think, for the first time, that I really should have asked your group members for their sides before I made that judgment.

And as far as that footnote goes, what could you get from asking "can the GM do this?" here in any event? We're sure not going to be calling him up and telling him he can't, so....Validation. Which you made no bones about being quite upset you didn't get for the first few pages, when your "translation" had resulted in you claiming that you were "down" and the GM thought you were "unconscious," and everyone was coming down on the GM's side.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but next time you start one of these "the group I'm still bafflingly playing with did something nutty, this is nutty, right?" threads, my first question is going to be, "So, the events you describe: accurate or bowdlerized?"

That's utterly baffling to me that you can't distinguish between lying about pertinent details and glossing over generalizations.

That just isn't how people communicate. Nobody has ten hours to explain every little intricacy and explain every technicality and unfamiliar concept.

So, for example, if I was telling you a story about my former player Dave who moved to Arizona and had a schizophrenic break, assaulted a police officer, and ended up in a psychiatric ward, and you later found out that I told you he lived in Phoenix rather than in Chandler, a small suburb of Phoenix, to save time, you would now doubt the entire story happened?


*: Heck, his name isn't even Dave irl; I use KoDT nicknames when telling these stories. Is that also dishonest?



That's just because you're using the smile word "translating" for "claiming something happened that isn't what happened."

No, there is absolutely a difference between translating and lying.

Say I am telling a story about the time I was playing AD&D in the 80s, and my thief saved the party by rolling 3 20s in a row.
If I decide to embellish the story and change it to rolling 10 20s in a row, that is a lie.
If I refer to my thief as a rogue because I don't want to derail the story by explaining how the class name was changed in 3E, that is a translation.

Those are, fundamentally, not the same thing. And if you are going to label someone as dishonest and doubt everything they say because of the latter... well, you're going to have a lot of trust issues in your life.

[Keltest]

No, there is absolutely a difference between translating and lying.

Say I am telling a story about the time I was playing AD&D in the 80s, and my thief saved the party by rolling 3 20s in a row.
If I decide to embellish the story and change it to rolling 10 20s in a row, that is a lie.
If I refer to my thief as a rogue because I don't want to derail the story by explaining how the class name was changed in 3E, that is a translation.

Those are, fundamentally, not the same thing. And if you are going to label someone as dishonest and doubt everything they say because of the latter... well, you're going to have a lot of trust issues in your life.

Theres no need to be "translating" here. We all speak English. Explain the rules you're using if they're relevant, don't use completely differently functioning rules that dont actually have anything to do with the scenario at hand. It isn't translation when you do that, its just obfuscation. You are making things less clear by doing it, not more, and your comparison to the class name change between editions is not especially strong.

[Kish]

That's utterly baffling to me that you can't distinguish between lying about pertinent details and glossing over generalizations.

That just isn't how people communicate. Nobody has ten hours to explain every little intricacy and explain every technicality and unfamiliar concept.

Talakeal, look at this thread. Look at the responses you got--for something other than to justify feeling hard-done-by. Do you really, really think I'm the one of the two of us who is demonstrating a nonstandard understanding of "how people communicate"? As for my "trust issues in life" (as if I had ever, and I do mean ever, previously met someone who was casually like "since people reacted this way to my using this inaccurate terminology this time and I had to spend a bunch of posts explaining that I'd used deliberately inaccurate terminology and trying to explain what had really happened after I'd forgotten some of the details myself, I'll use different deliberately inaccurate terminology next time"), I suggest comparing the number of threads each of us have started about "my group is so dysfunctional and particularly mean to me."

Edited to add, looking at Keltest's post: Suppose you're telling a story about an AD&D character and instead of "translating" and saying "rogue," you say "thief."

What bad thing is going to happen then because of your "failure to translate"?

[Talakeal]

Theres no need to be "translating" here. We all speak English. Explain the rules you're using if they're relevant, don't use completely differently functioning rules that don't actually have anything to do with the scenario at hand. It isn't translation when you do that, its just obfuscation. You are making things less clear by doing it, not more, and your comparison to the class name change between editions is not especially strong.

English yes, but I doubt very many people have a lexicon for specific terms in my Heart of Darkness system.

My intention was to translate rules directly from one system to the other; I already apologized and admitted I made a mistake doing so in this particular instance.




I still don't think that you should label someone a liar and doubt their stories if they use widely understood terminology rather than precise terminology if it doesn't change the intent.


You can't tell me its easier to read:

My nephillim (which is the Heart of Darkness term for a half human half angel) character who is a holy templar (a character build based around melee combat, divine magic, and heavy armor) had just returned from fighting a group of Merrow (which are essentially my take on illithids) led by an argus (which is essentially my take on a beholder) when I got into an argument with Bob (that isn't his real name, but a nickname due to his resemblance to the Knights of the Dinner Table character who is also a balding munchkin) over how to split the loot; him saying that because he was better with money than me he deserves a double share...

Vs.

My Aasimar paladin had just killed a group of illithids and a beholder, when Bob told me he thinks he deserves a double share of loot because he is better with money than me.


Nor do any of those translations have any bearing on the fact matter of how the money should be split.



Edited to add, looking at Keltest's post: Suppose you're telling a story about an AD&D character and instead of "translating" and saying "rogue," you say "thief."

What bad thing is going to happen then because of your "failure to translate"?

Ideally nothing. But it certainly could. For example, if then the conversation went into a direction of say, stealing from the party, someone could easilly say "Well, you already admitted you were a thief!" Or, someone could simply point out the discrepency, "I don't believe this story. For one thing, "rogues" didn't exist in 1987, they were called "thieves"; if you can't even get such a simple thing as that straight, clearly this whole tale is an falsehood!"

Likewise, 99% of the time, I use D&D terminology on this forum because that is what people here know and I don't have to waste a bunch of space and everyone's time providing clarifications and definitions. And it doesn't matter. But, that remaining 1% of the time, when I make a mistake and don't translate a term 1 to 1 and it becomes relevant, then it blows up in my face.


Talakeal, look at this thread. Look at the responses you got--for something other than to justify feeling hard-done-by. Do you really, really think I'm the one of the two of us who is demonstrating a nonstandard understanding of "how people communicate"? As for my "trust issues in life" (as if I had ever, and I do mean ever, previously met someone who was casually like "since people reacted this way to my using this inaccurate terminology this time and I had to spend a bunch of posts explaining that I'd used deliberately inaccurate terminology and trying to explain what had really happened after I'd forgotten some of the details myself, I'll use different deliberately inaccurate terminology next time"), I suggest comparing the number of threads each of us have started about "my group is so dysfunctional and particularly mean to me."

Ok, so, I don't see a comparison here. Mostly because, I think, we are still trying to be polite and avoid an infraction.

Are you saying that you think I am making up all of these stories because I am such a dishonest liar?
Are you saying that I am causing all of these horror stories because I am so bad at communication?
Are you saying both; that I am coming in here and then distorting the story so much that I look like the victim but in reality I am the villain?

I have a lot to say on this matter, and I am even willing to make a few concessions; but at this point I don't really see a point. If you are convinced I am a liar, why would you give credence to anything I say? And if you really can't tell the difference between translating terminology from one game system to another and distorting the events of the story to, presumably, make myself look like the victim and my GM a jerk (in a terribly inefficient way that is very likely to backfire), then I don't think you are a person I can ever have a reasonable conversation with.



Edit: For what it's worth; my current group is dysfunctional. I have been in many groups over the years, some of them more dysfunctional than others, but I would say that the majority aren't, and if you go back through my posting history and look, I don't think you will find many posts about the ones that aren't. Honestly, I think its probably more about the combination of personalities involved than a single person being the cause. For example, in the D&D group I was in from 2015-2017, the DM was the biggest blowhard I have ever met; there are a fair number of horror stories from that period because I would challenge him; the other players just went along with it, and he had plenty of horror stories about problem players in the past who challenged him. I have no doubt I am among them. But in his regular group, the players don't challenge him, and the games mostly go fine. For that same period, I was also in a Mage group that went perfect (which is especially weird because the above GM was a player in said group) and I don't think I have any horror stories from that group. My point being, his group isn't dysfunctional without me, and the mage group isn't dysfunctional with me, but when you put him behind the screen and me in front of it, it creates a dysfunctional situation.

In short, it's a lot more complicated than trying to say "You are a toxic player. You cause problems!"

Also, I don't think my current group is any meaner to me than they are to eachother.

[Keltest]

English yes, but I doubt very many people have a lexicon for specific terms in my Heart of Darkness system.

My intention was to translate rules directly from one system to the other; I already apologized and admitted I made a mistake doing so in this particular instance.




I still don't think that you should label someone a liar and doubt their stories if they use widely understood terminology rather than precise terminology if it doesn't change the intent.


You can't tell me its easier to read:

My nephillim (which is the Heart of Darkness term for a half human half angel) character who is a holy templar (a character build based around melee combat, divine magic, and heavy armor) had just returned from fighting a group of Merrow (which are essentially my take on illithids) led by an argus (which is essentially my take on a beholder) when I got into an argument with Bob (that isn't his real name, but a nickname due to his resemblance to the Knights of the Dinner Table character who is also a balding munchkin) over how to split the loot; him saying that because he was better with money than me he deserves a double share...

Vs.

My Aasimar paladin had just killed a group of illithids and a beholder, when Bob told me he thinks he deserves a double share of loot because he is better with money than me.


Nor do any of those translations have any bearing on the fact matter of how the money should be split.

If they dont have any bearing, dont bring them up. "We killed some monsters and Bob thought he deserved a bigger cut because he was better with money." Simple and with no distractions to the point. If it does matter, be clearer rather than worrying about whats faster to read.

[ngilop]

So, this may be the source of the confusion.

I come from a basketball family. My father and my brother are both huge basketball fans, played college ball, have worked as referees, and my brother is currently professional high school basketball coach.

I asked my brother and my father about this, and they both unequivocally said that is a player is "down" that means that they are injured.

Maybe I am just so used to basketball terminology that I am applying it to every game without questioning whether it is appropriate.


Yes, and in basketball, if you are down and injured.. you are no longer able to play in the game/period, or Until cleared by medical. They don't go down due to a twisted ankle, hobble off court, then randomly come back out and shoot a three pointer.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, and in basketball, if you are down and injured.. you are no longer able to play in the game/period, or Until cleared by medical. They don't go down due to a twisted ankle, hobble off court, then randomly come back out and shoot a three pointer. Whereas in diving championships soccer, they do.

For the OP:
Sometimes when you ask a question you don't get the answer you were expecting, or were hoping for.
Life lesson for you. This thread illustrates that principle nicely.

[Talakeal]

Yes, and in basketball, if you are down and injured.. you are no longer able to play in the game/period, or Until cleared by medical. They don't go down due to a twisted ankle, hobble off court, then randomly come back out and shoot a three pointer.

True.

And in my system you are risking further injury or death by continuing to act while down. It seems a pretty close comparison.

Although again, "down" isn't actually a rules term in either Basketball or Heart of Darkness, its just what my group says when we hit zero HP.


Whereas in diving championships soccer, they do.

For the OP:
Sometimes when you ask a question you don't get the answer you were expecting, or were hoping for.
Life lesson for you. This thread illustrates that principle nicely.

Actually, I got pretty much the answer I was expecting to the question I actually asked; everyone has said the GM does not have unilateral authority to rewind it and its more of a meta-game thing that requires whole table buy in.

The whole tangent about whether or not I deceived the DM by using the word "down" or deceived the forum by translating game terminology from one system to another is a line of discussion I simply didn't foresee and didn't ask any questions about.

[NichG]

Actually, I got pretty much the answer I was expecting to the question I actually asked; everyone has said the GM does not have unilateral authority to rewind it and its more of a meta-game thing that requires whole table buy in.


No, lots of people said that the GM does have this authority, or even that any given player has this authority.

[False God]

No, lots of people said that the GM does have this authority, or even that any given player has this authority.

Yeah, I'm not sure where he got that answer from, because it wasn't here.

I guess it must have been Whose Playground is it Anyway! Where the questions are made up and the answers don't matter!

[icefractal]

Yeah, I'm not sure where he got that answer from, because it wasn't here.Eh, IDK, I feel like it's the more common feeling. IDK about "authority", but if a GM in our group retconned a foe's choices (as opposed to "this was resolved incorrectly") specifically in order to kill a PC, they would face significant pushback. Likely, they would be peer-pressured into not doing it, and if they did it anyway, it might result in nobody wanting to play their campaign.

Especially in this context, where it seems like the foe was spreading attacks and only would have changed actions based on information it didn't have at the time, but really even if it did make tactical sense, retconning for that end would be considered very poor GMing.

[NichG]

Eh, IDK, I feel like it's the more common feeling. IDK about "authority", but if a GM in our group retconned a foe's choices (as opposed to "this was resolved incorrectly") specifically in order to kill a PC, they would face significant pushback. Likely, they would be peer-pressured into not doing it, and if they did it anyway, it might result in nobody wanting to play their campaign.

Especially in this context, where it seems like the foe was spreading attacks and only would have changed actions based on information it didn't have at the time, but really even if it did make tactical sense, retconning for that end would be considered very poor GMing.

Nevertheless the actual responses in the thread were much more mixed. The first responses were: yes, no, yes, yes, yes but shouldn't, yes but shouldn't

After which it got into a big thing about details of the scenario and I'm not going to try to pull apart the actual new responses rather than posters following up

Where 'yes' means a poster said the GM has the right to do it, and 'yes but shouldn't' was engaging the sort of meta consensus idea.

[False God]

Eh, IDK, I feel like it's the more common feeling. IDK about "authority", but if a GM in our group retconned a foe's choices (as opposed to "this was resolved incorrectly") specifically in order to kill a PC, they would face significant pushback. Likely, they would be peer-pressured into not doing it, and if they did it anyway, it might result in nobody wanting to play their campaign.

Especially in this context, where it seems like the foe was spreading attacks and only would have changed actions based on information it didn't have at the time, but really even if it did make tactical sense, retconning for that end would be considered very poor GMing.

I honestly try to address Talakeals specific situations as little as possible, since they so often strike me as improbable and made up.

That said, the general response in this thread seems to have been "Yes it is the DMs authority to do so, though some reasons will sit better with the group than others." It is certainly not "No, they don't have the authority." or even "Yes but they really shouldn't." and certainly not "everyone has said the DM does not have unilateral authority..."

[Keltest]

In hindsight, "can the DM do x" is a really strange question coming from the actual system designer. One would presume and hope the guy who set the DM's power and responsibilities would have a solid understanding of what those are.

[Talakeal]

This thread is really weird.

I told the initial story wrong (and I fully admit and apologize for that) and so people got the impression that I was lying to the GM. When I clarified and tried to say I don't think that was the issue, it shifted to "Well then, you must be lying about EVERYTHING!".

It's just super bizarre for me to tell a story that was true, albeit with some of the details wrong, and then having to spend 150 posts listening to people accuse me of lying about anything and everything.



My whole life, one thing that has remained consistent it: the truth is the truth is the truth, no matter how many times it is told, or to which person is it told to. If the story keeps changing, it is probably not the truth.

Out of curiosity, do you actually believe this?

Because that isn't how the human mind works. People's memories change over time based on new information and emotional state while remembering, and eye witness testimony is among the least reliable forms of testimony. You will often get multiple people who directly witnessed an event being unable to agree on the details. This is normal. It does not mean that all the witnesses are pathological liars and it certainly doesn't mean that the event they are describing never happened.


Yeah, I'm not sure where he got that answer from, because it wasn't here.

I guess it must have been Whose Playground is it Anyway! Where the questions are made up and the answers don't matter!

Ok, I went back, reread the thread, and counted.

2 people said yes, the GM unilaterally has that power.
7 people said the GM has that power, but only in very specific situations.
8 People said that is requires the consent of the group.
1 Person said you shouldn't retcon things, but should penalize the player going forward to make up for it.
3 People said that both the GM and the players have that capability.

So unless you are busting my chops over saying "everyone" when in fact its only 19/21 people, I don't see how you can claim I am making it up.


That said, the general response in this thread seems to have been "Yes it is the DMs authority to do so, though some reasons will sit better with the group than others." It is certainly not "No, they don't have the authority." or even "Yes but they really shouldn't." and certainly not "everyone has said the DM does not have unilateral authority..."

Again, afaict in ~150 posts only 2 people have said the DM has unilateral authority.

Although as since this thread has been out to prove me a liar since literally the first response, I should probably be treating it less like a forum conversation and more like a legal deposition and not say "everyone" to mean "the vast majority of people".


That said, the general response in this thread seems to have been "Yes it is the DMs authority to do so, though some reasons will sit better with the group than others." It is certainly not "No, they don't have the authority." or even "Yes but they really shouldn't." and certainly not "everyone has said the DM does not have unilateral authority..."


I honestly try to address Talakeals specific situations as little as possible, since they so often strike me as improbable and made up.

That's fair. There are some posters I think are full of crap, even if I am too polite to actually say it out loud, and I do have some pretty incredible stories*.

I will say though, that if I am a troll, I am one of the most dedicated in history, keeping the same story up for over 20 years (I have only posted on this forum for 15, but I was on the WoTC forum for 5+ years before that), and writing four ~50,000 word campaign diaries to support it.

For what it's worth, I have never made up any of my stories or deliberately lied about a pertinent detail (although I will fully admit that I have made mistakes, forgotten important details, and smoothed over or left out what I considered irrelevant details for the sake of clarity or brevity).

But its the internet, so there is no way I can actually prove it to you.

I suppose, if people want, I can get Brian (the GM in this question and witness to most of my horror stories) to post his side of things, I know he has a little used account on here*, although I suppose there is no way anyone could tell that it wasn't just me posting on a sock-puppet account.


*: If I had to guess why that is, it's because I am obsessed with RPGs and am scared of strangers. This combination has caused me to stay in what I knew were toxic gaming groups for far too long, and to be super hesitant to kick out toxic people. I am also fairly stubborn and have no ability to read body language, so I tend to escalate conflicts without realizing it.
**: I really wish the WoTC forums were still up. He posted a few horror stories of his own on that one, and it was so weird to watch people react to it from the other direction.


In hindsight, "can the DM do x" is a really strange question coming from the actual system designer. One would presume and hope the guy who set the DM's power and responsibilities would have a solid understanding of what those are.

That's a much more interesting question.

In my experience, rulebooks are kind of wishy washy about a GM's authority.

My system absolutely does not give the GM the authority to fudge dice rolls, ret-con events, change the rules, etc.

However, it does give the GM the authority to make a ruling when the rules fail, set up the scenario, and to interpret the results of dice rolls when they don't clearly make sense.

Exactly where the line between the two is, is impossible to tell though.

Most systems are kind of fuzzy on what authority the GM has, and a lot of people read that fuzziness as "The GM is always right and can do whatever they want" regardless of the system. I remember a lot of the old White Wolf books always had a paragraph about how the rules are just suggestions and "you" are free to change them as you see fit, but never defined whether "you" was the GM, the group as a whole, any given player, a majority of the gaming group, or the community as a whole.

[Kish]

This thread is really weird.

I told the initial story wrong (and I fully admit and apologize for that) and so people got the impression that I was lying to the GM. When I clarified and tried to say I don't think that was the issue, it shifted to "Well then, you must be lying about EVERYTHING!".

It's just super bizarre for me to tell a story that was true, albeit with some of the details wrong, and then having to spend 150 posts listening to people accuse me of lying about anything and everything.

Because you literally said you would claim other (still equally inaccurate) things next time. That's not fully admitting and apologizing for telling the initial story wrong. That's admitting and apologizing for something kind of adjacent to what you did wrong while explicitly stating you plan to continue doing it.


Because that isn't how the human mind works.

You are apparently the only human on this forum, man. And do you not realize what an over-the-top escalation that is for you to keep trotting it out so regularly?

Let's try this.

Hands up, anyone else who, when describing a situation and asking for other people's opinions on it, deliberately changes details, and finds it inhuman to suggest that interferes in any way with communicating.

[NichG]

Ok, I went back, reread the thread, and counted.

2 people said yes, the GM unilaterally has that power.
7 people said the GM has that power, but only in very specific situations.
8 People said that is requires the consent of the group.
1 Person said you shouldn't retcon things, but should penalize the player going forward to make up for it.
3 People said that both the GM and the players have that capability.

So unless you are busting my chops over saying "everyone" when in fact its only 19/21 people, I don't see how you can claim I am making it up.


I am in fact objecting to the 'everyone', because I am part of 'everyone' and I certainly did not say what you claim that I did. If you had said 'a lot of people' or 'half of everyone' or even 'most people' I wouldn't have commented. But I really don't like when other people put words in my mouth, or imply that I said things to support their view when in fact that's not what I was doing. You're also still doing it here, because several of those 'only in very specific situations' in fact would apply to the situation you described! And the person saying you should penalize the player going forward is certainly not supporting your side of this either! Which then makes it 11/21, and 50/50 is really different than 'everyone'.

As a broader point, this is the sort of behavior that leads to people not trusting what you're saying so much, because you have a tendency to approximate or translate or only notice the parts that support what you'd like the answer to be. So e.g. when you do that to me with what I said, I am going to be more likely to assume that when you're presenting someone else I don't have access to and can't talk to directly in a bad light, or presenting events in a way that seems to favor you, maybe you're doing the same thing with them.

I would suggest in the future that you don't post stories from your table at all when you're intending on asking questions about general, abstract points. And if you actually do want feedback on a specific situation, please don't act like 'oh, its a general question, the specific details of my story don't matter', because of course they do matter and when you omit things or 'translate' things in a way that actually changes what someone's ruling would have been, then yeah that starts to look dishonest.

[KorvinStarmast]

Talakeal

If I may circle back around to this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25746036&postcount=104): can you please describe, in your own words, the social contract at your table?

[Talakeal]

Because you literally said you would claim other (still equally inaccurate) things next time. That's not fully admitting and apologizing for telling the initial story wrong. That's admitting and apologizing for something kind of adjacent to what you did wrong while explicitly stating you plan to continue doing it.

Ok. So, to be clear, you want me to apologize for using D&D terminology for describing my home-brew system. This is what I "did wrong?"

Or am I missing something?


You are apparently the only human on this forum, man. And do you not realize what an over-the-top escalation that is for you to keep trotting it out so regularly?

I am not saying you "aren't human". I am saying you have unrealistic standards for how the human memory works.

Just spend a few minutes googling articles about why eye-witness testimony is unreliable.



Let's try this.

Hands up, anyone else who, when describing a situation and asking for other people's opinions on it, deliberately changes details, and finds it inhuman to suggest that interferes in any way with communicating.

First off, this needs to be two separate questions.

Second, you need to draw the distinction between relevant details and irrelevant details. Phrased this way, most people will assume you mean important details.

Third, I didn't say its "inhuman to suggest it interferes with communicating". I am saying that it is both acceptable and normal to change irrelevant details for the sake of efficient communication; for example referring to Chandler as Phoenix, and estranged wife as an ex-wife, a rogue as a thief, etc.


I am in fact objecting to the 'everyone', because I am part of 'everyone' and I certainly did not say what you claim that I did. If you had said 'a lot of people' or 'half of everyone' or even 'most people' I wouldn't have commented. But I really don't like when other people put words in my mouth, or imply that I said things to support their view when in fact that's not what I was doing. You're also still doing it here, because several of those 'only in very specific situations' in fact would apply to the situation you described! And the person saying you should penalize the player going forward is certainly not supporting your side of this either! Which then makes it 11/21, and 50/50 is really different than 'everyone'.

As a broader point, this is the sort of behavior that leads to people not trusting what you're saying so much, because you have a tendency to approximate or translate or only notice the parts that support what you'd like the answer to be. So e.g. when you do that to me with what I said, I am going to be more likely to assume that when you're presenting someone else I don't have access to and can't talk to directly in a bad light, or presenting events in a way that seems to favor you, maybe you're doing the same thing with them.

I would suggest in the future that you don't post stories from your table at all when you're intending on asking questions about general, abstract points. And if you actually do want feedback on a specific situation, please don't act like 'oh, its a general question, the specific details of my story don't matter', because of course they do matter and when you omit things or 'translate' things in a way that actually changes what someone's ruling would have been, then yeah that starts to look dishonest.

Again, I don't treat forum conversations like legal depositions.

Yes, everyone isn't literally true.

If we were just walking down the street and you heard someone say "Everyone has cell phones these days!" or "Everyone has heard of Elvis Presley!" or "Everyone knows that there are 12 months in a year!" you wouldn't think twice about it, even though they aren't, of course, literally true.

AFAICT only two people said the DM has unilateral authority*; to me, in casual speech, that is not a lie. But, as there are several people in this thread who are working hard to prove my dishonesty for some reason, I really shouldn't be making generalizations like that.

*Although it is certainly possible I missed a post or you would draw a different line on "unilateral" than I did.

[NichG]

Again, I don't treat forum conversations like legal depositions.

Yes, everyone isn't literally true.

If we were just walking down the street and you heard someone say "Everyone has cell phones these days!" or "Everyone has heard of Elvis Presley!" or "Everyone knows that there are 12 months in a year!" you wouldn't think twice about it, even though they aren't, of course, literally true.


If, for example, I were in a room of people and we were deciding what to order out, and 6 people said they wanted pizza, 3 people wanted Chinese, 2 person wanted Mexican, and 1 person (me) said they wanted a salad, I would definitely think twice about it if someone said for example 'everyone said they want pizza, so lets get pizza'. I would say 'no, I in fact did not say I wanted pizza, stop putting words in my mouth.' Doesn't need to be a legal deposition.

Telling me that I supported your desired answer when I explicitly did not is gaslighting me. Please stop doing that.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal

If I may circle back around to this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25746036&postcount=104): can you please describe, in your own words, the social contract at your table?

I was kind of joking with the "my table specifically", because I don't think our table has one. I could guess at one, but I am really bad at reading other people's unspoken assumptions, so I wouldn't want to try.

Is there any specific things you want to know about how the table operates? Any specific questions you want me to ask my group? Any suggestions or ideas for creating a social contract?


If, for example, I were in a room of people and we were deciding what to order out, and 6 people said they wanted pizza, 3 people wanted Chinese, 2 person wanted Mexican, and 1 person (me) said they wanted a salad, I would definitely think twice about it if someone said for example 'everyone said they want pizza, so lets get pizza'. I would say 'no, I in fact did not say I wanted pizza, stop putting words in my mouth.' Doesn't need to be a legal deposition.

Telling me that I supported your desired answer when I explicitly did not is gaslighting me. Please stop doing that.

I agree with this example.

As I count it, 91% of the responses did not support unilateral DM authority to ret-con. To me, in casual conversation, that is enough to say everyone. It would have been more technically correct to say "practically everyone" or "feels like about everyone".

I can see how as part of the dissenting 9% you feel hurt by that. I am sorry.

[NichG]

I agree with this example.

As I count it, 91% of the responses did not support unilateral DM authority to ret-con. To me, in casual conversation, that is enough to say everyone. It would have been more technically correct to say "practically everyone" or "feels like about everyone".

I can see how as part of the dissenting 9% you feel hurt by that. I am sorry.

I really wonder how many would agree that they actually belong in your 91% based on what they posted...



*Although it is certainly possible I missed a post or you would draw a different line on "unilateral" than I did.


... So lets go one by one and see.


Keltest: Yes (unilateral DM authority)
Sure. I do it all the time.

Ionathus: No
My simple rule for "DM Fiat" is that I only ever fudge in the players' favor.

Satinavian: Yes (but prefer other options first)
Rewinding when some misunderstanding led to things happening that would not have happened otherwise is something a GM can do. It is somewhat inelegant though and rarely called for.

BRC: Yes (in your case)
A retcon is called for to align the game-state with what should have been, had things been properly understood.

ngilop: Yes
yes. 100% the GM has the ability to do that.

MoiMagnus: Yes (but), on the side of yes
It's a yes because at the tables I want to play in, I'll trust the GM to use that power carefully, and reciprocate by tolerating player mistakes.

Kyoryu: (Edit: Yes, from followup response)
Personally I think that pulling a retcon to down a PC is a pretty bad move, but that's of secondary importance to the actual answer, which is what I said above.

Pex: Yes within a round, no otherwise
I'm fine with ret-con from the moment that player's turn ends and about to go to the next player when it's remembered to maybe at most it's a player's turn after the next player's turn ended. Even if it means a monster attacks a PC because the DM forgot its turn, it's fine.

Bunny Commando: Yes (in your case)
but I do believe a GM should have the power to rewind the clock if there was a critical misunderstanding at the table and it does seem there was such misunderstanding at your table.

Wintermute: I would count these posts as N/A
The whole side tangent of whether or not a DM has the authority, right or ability to rewind to an earlier point in time in the combat is completely irrelevant. I'm not going to engage on that point, because it doesn't matter.

Willie the Duck: Yes (in your case)
it seems utterly reasonable to me that one should go back and fix such situations

Icefractal: I'll call this a 'no'
Also I suspect that the GM in this case enjoys the ability to survive from dying as a player, and would get salty AF if another GM had the monsters ensure their character was 100% dead. Because hypocrisy is like a leitmotif of that group.

Batcathat: Yes (but), on the side of yes
Yes, I think the GM generally should have that power, but it should typically be used vary sparingly.

False God: Yes (in your case)
Sure, when there is a reasonable misunderstanding about the events and rewinding will improve the game in some manner.

Zuras: Penalty and play on rather than retcon
Personally, if I were DMing I would have simply disallowed you taking any actions on your next turn

Captain Cap: Ambiguous but seems 'yes in your case'
At that point one either doesn't do anything beyond acknowledging it and making sure it won't happen again, or attempts to correct the outcome of the misinterpretation, which may very well be a retcon or the application of a penalty to balance out the unintended advantage given.

Turboghast: No
Retcons and rewinds aren't elegant tools, so they should be saved for when they're truly necessary.

(edited)
Pauly: Yes
In regards to the question in the OP.
Do-overs/rewinds/retcons whatever you want to call them are valid when:
a) There is a genuine misunderstanding of rule mechanics
b) Information has been misunderstood.
c) the flow on effects are easily reversible.


Lacco: Yes (in your case)
I like the clear rules for rewinds. I'd only add that I usually allow rewinds when the player would would make a different IC decision if they were actually viewing the world by character's eyes.

King of Nowhere: Yes (in your case)
Same here too. If somebody performs a wrong action because of a communication misunderstanding, we try to retcon it.

Easy e: Technical yes, but I'll count as 'no'
Can a GM declare a Retcon? Yes. Should they? Probably not UNLESS it is in the player's favor and immediate.

Quertus: Technical yes, but I'll count as 'no'
Just throwing my 2 copper in, but... yes, "retcon" is a tool in the GM's toolkit, but it's kinda a nuclear option. So it would be bad form for the GM to use in this case.

NichG: Yes (in your case)
If the mistake is recent enough that no one else has committed to any risky resolution, revealed hidden information, or committed undue amount of time or effort that would have to be re-done, then anyone at the table should be able to unilaterally request a retcon. Player, GM, anyone.

gbaji: Yes (in your case). Though, apologies if this was just summarizing the rest of the thread rather than your (gbaji's) own position.
Q. When can a player or GM retcon/rewind something in a game?

A. When there was a misunderstanding of the real conditions in the game, such that a player (or GM) believed something was different than how it was, where the character they are playing should have known the "correct" condition, and which lead them to make a decision with that character that was not what they would have otherwise.


KorvinStarmast: Most posts are about your interactions in your story. I would count as N/A

OldTrees: Somewhat ambiguous yes or N/A
Yes, retcons can happen to fix miscommunications. Try to avoid miscommunications while fixing a miscommunication.


That's all I could find that had a position on the original question. Please respond if you think I've misrepresented your position!

So by that count, there are 24 people who had some kind of position on this, with 2 (or 3 depending on how one counts OldTrees) N/A responses. That does agree with your 21 if we count OldTrees as N/A. You didn't explicitly answer your own question, but I assume based on the conversation so far we can also add Talakeal: No, for 22 total.

Out of those 22.

- Can and should the GM unilaterally declare a retcon for any reason whatsoever? 4/22 (edited: Pauly's response, Kyoryru's response)

- Can and should the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place? 15/22. This is already over half the posters! I'm counting Pex as 'no' here because of the 1 round restriction, but it would be 16/22 if we count as yes. (Edited: Kyoryu's response)

- Can the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place, even if they should use other methods first? 16/22 (or 17/22 if we count Pex as 'yes' here). (Edited: Kyoryu's response)

So we go from over half saying 'yes, the GM can retcon' to your claim of '91% say that the GM can't.' because of this particular threshold you're choosing to use, which I assume from these numbers is that if there's literally any qualification given you treat it as a 'no'. Even though a lot of the 'yes, if there's a misunderstanding' responses did not say that it required table consensus or discussion to do it!

[Satinavian]

Ok, I went back, reread the thread, and counted.

2 people said yes, the GM unilaterally has that power.
7 people said the GM has that power, but only in very specific situations.
8 People said that is requires the consent of the group.
1 Person said you shouldn't retcon things, but should penalize the player going forward to make up for it.
3 People said that both the GM and the players have that capability.

So unless you are busting my chops over saying "everyone" when in fact its only 19/21 people, I don't see how you can claim I am making it up.
You are counting wrong.

Obviously the 3 people that say everyone should have the ability are obviously including that GM does hat the unilateral authority. He is just not alone.
The 7 people that say the GM has this power in certain circumstances also give the GM the authority to unilateral do so if the requirement are met.


Edit :
Or i could just refer to NichG who invested more time and did it better.

[Pauly]

I really wonder how many would agree that they actually belong in your 91% based on what they posted...



... So lets go one by one and see.


Keltest: Yes (unilateral DM authority)

Ionathus: No

Satinavian: Yes (but prefer other options first)

BRC: Yes (in your case)

ngilop: Yes

MoiMagnus: Yes (but), on the side of yes

Kyoryu: I'll call this effectively a 'no' because it was 'yes technically, but don't'

Pex: Yes within a round, no otherwise

Bunny Commando: Yes (in your case)

Wintermute: I would count these posts as N/A

Willie the Duck: Yes (in your case)

Icefractal: I'll call this a 'no'

Batcathat: Yes (but), on the side of yes

False God: Yes (in your case)

Zuras: Penalty and play on rather than retcon

Captain Cap: Ambiguous but seems 'yes in your case'

Turboghast: No

Pauly: Yes (in your case)

Lacco: Yes (in your case)

King of Nowhere: Yes (in your case)

Easy e: Technical yes, but I'll count as 'no'

Quertus: Technical yes, but I'll count as 'no'

NichG: Yes (in your case)

gbaji: Yes (in your case). Though, apologies if this was just summarizing the rest of the thread rather than your (gbaji's) own position.

KorvinStarmast: Most posts are about your interactions in your story. I would count as N/A

OldTrees: Somewhat ambiguous yes or N/A


That's all I could find that had a position on the original question. Please respond if you think I've misrepresented your position!

So by that count, there are 24 people who had some kind of position on this, with 2 (or 3 depending on how one counts OldTrees) N/A responses. That does agree with your 21 if we count OldTrees as N/A. You didn't explicitly answer your own question, but I assume based on the conversation so far we can also add Talakeal: No, for 22 total.

Out of those 22.

- Can and should the GM unilaterally declare a retcon for any reason whatsoever? 2/22

- Can and should the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place? 13/22. This is already over half the posters! I'm counting Pex as 'no' here because of the 1 round restriction, but it would be 14/22 if we count as yes.

- Can the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place, even if they should use other methods first? 15/22 (or 16/22 if we count Pex as 'yes' here).

So we go from over half saying 'yes, the GM can retcon' to your claim of '91% say that the GM can't.' because of this particular threshold you're choosing to use, which I assume from these numbers is that if there's literally any qualification given you treat it as a 'no'. Even though a lot of the 'yes, if there's a misunderstanding' responses did not say that it required table consensus or discussion to do it!

Just to clarify my opinion, since I am quoted.
In a binary world “Can and should the GM retcon?”. Yes.

In other words the ability to retcon is more important than the qualifiers or restrictions.

[kyoryu]

Just to clarify my opinion, since I am quoted.
In a binary world “Can and should the GM retcon?”. Yes.

In other words the ability to retcon is more important than the qualifiers or restrictions.

Same with me, since I'm also quoted.

[Talakeal]

To the last four posters, I never once in this thread said that a GM shouldn’t be able to retcon.

I said that it is something that needs to involve the whole table, either at the time or under pre agreed upon condition. Which I feel that the vast majority of posters agree with, although specifics may very.

What I objected to was the idea that the DM is entitled to retcon at any time for any reason without player input. And I feel from this thread that this is indeed a minority opinion.

I suppose if given the choice between no tap-backs at all or giving one player absolute unquestioned authority to do it I would choose the former, but I don’t think anyone has endorsed that binary.

[Pex]

- Can and should the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place? 13/22. This is already over half the posters! I'm counting Pex as 'no' here because of the 1 round restriction, but it would be 14/22 if we count as yes.

- Can the GM unilaterally declare a retcon if they determine that a misunderstanding has taken place, even if they should use other methods first? 15/22 (or 16/22 if we count Pex as 'yes' here).



Sorry for the trouble. :smallbiggrin:

I like within the round because it can be fixed without too much trouble. As DM I've retconned my own booboo meaning a PC didn't take the damage he did. I'd even allow a player to redo his entire turn because the reason he did the turn as he did wouldn't have applied in the ret-con. When it's more than one round too many players have taken their turns. Too much stuff has happened. It's too bad you forgot the bardic inspiration. It's too bad you forgot to roll for bless. The game had already reacted in a significant way. I trust the players and DM aren't cheating so the mishap just happens and remember for next time.

The only exception I can fathom for a redo of more than a round is if a PC died due to game error. Depending on circumstances it could be pretend it didn't happen the player and monster if applicable just didn't have a turn that round, get back all resources used up. If that's not feasible PC is still dropped but autostabilized no more death saves needed. This can happen if a player forgot bless or bardic inspiration on a saving throw that would not have killed him if made. People make mistakes. It's just a game.

[Satinavian]

That the retcon is conditional does not mean is has to be pre-agreed.

In fact i have so far never had proper discussion about retconning privileges in any group. But retcons after misunderstandings happen anyway and everyone assumes that is normal.

As for "any reaons", well, what other reasons could there reaonably ever be ? The primary ones that come to mind are trying to safe the plot, which is handled under the railroad topic or trying to prevent a TPK which is handled under "Are PCs allowed to die" topic.


"The GM can retcon when he feels like it" is the default. And like every other GM tool it could theoretically be misused which would result in complaining. That is where the condition comes in. Using it to correct misunderstanding is the appropriate use. Using it for blatant railroading is a more questionable use. But it is a tool the GM can wield freely.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was kind of joking with the "my table specifically", because I don't think our table has one. I could guess at one, but I am really bad at reading other people's unspoken assumptions, so I wouldn't want to try.

Is there any specific things you want to know about how the table operates? Any specific questions you want me to ask my group? Any suggestions or ideas for creating a social contract? The reason I asked is that a lot of people don't understand what a social contract is. I'll add your group to that list.

Let me try to ask this a little differently: what are the formal norms, and what are the informal norms, in your small group?

Yeah, I am asking you to think about this. There are two areas in particular where friction commonly arises in groups, small, medium, or large:

not sharing the same assumptions
not sharing the same expectations

Since you are a small group, then (based on your posting history as regards the escapades of your small group) you need to learn more about small group dynamics at the most fundamental level if you want to resolve some of the friction that you describe in post after post.

There's a useful model that describes a small group's formation that has four steps:
Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing (https://www.toolshero.com/management/tuckman-stages-of-group-development/). (It's not the only useful model out there - for sure - but it's a pretty good one and I've found that it applies pretty well to TTRPG groups).

You have obviously formed, and from your own accounts you have stormed, but I wonder if you will ever get through the norming phase.

I get the idea that you'd like to, someday, reach the "Performing" stage.


Is there any specific things you want to know about how the table operates?
No, because I don't have to play at your table. But you do.

Any specific questions you want me to ask my group?
No, but there are some questions you need to address with your group.

Any suggestions or ideas for creating a social contract? It's a case of developing a shared and agreed understanding.

How often do you, as a group of people, sit down and talk about "what went well and what didn't go well" during the last gaming session?
That's a good starting point for a more productive conversation.

[Quertus]

Actually, I got pretty much the answer I was expecting to the question I actually asked; everyone has said the GM does not have unilateral authority to rewind it and its more of a meta-game thing that requires whole table buy in.


Nevertheless the actual responses in the thread were much more mixed. The first responses were: yes, no, yes, yes, yes but shouldn't, yes but shouldn't

I guess my response falls into the “can but shouldn’t” camp, and I definitely agree that by far the best answer in this case (about the only answer where I wouldn’t be poking the GM with a stick) involves the group having a discussion wrt how to handle the miscommunication.

“Whole table buy-in” is a bit of a tricky phrase. If I’m not mistaken, @NichG gave in many ways the best answer, in terms of most detailed and thought out, yet I’m not certain I’m actually 100% on the same page on all the fiddly details. I think it would have been a very interesting conversation, if the two of us had been at the same table, and something like this had come up.

Like, as a general rule, I usually approach a group decision as “settle for the best idea anyone can come up with”, and, once people have voiced their concerns/objections, I don’t remember any times where the “group + scenario” was such that the group didn’t all agree which retcon resolution was best (or which set of resolutions was best, and rolled between them) based on everyone’s concerns. Nor do I recall a group where “understand why this happened, Create the plan and put in the work to make it not happen again” wasn’t a roughly equal priority with giving this man a fish.

While we might disagree about which concerns are most important, I expect @NichG and I could both acknowledge, “I see that that is important to you” (even if I’m a ****, and might try to see if addressing an alternative concern could serve the same purpose), and come to a reasonable solution that addresses and shows respect for the concerns of those involved.

And that’s kinda the thing. You’ve kinda got two options: respect and cooperation (respectful collaboration?), or Horror story. It seems to me like the most important step here is to find a group of people who can be reasonable, who can talk through a situation to find a reasonable solution. Without that, you’re trapped in Bizarro World. So that might be something to think about when you make your attempt at greener pastures: anyone that you cannot champion their causes, and won’t champion yours, isn’t worth gaming with.


In hindsight, "can the DM do x" is a really strange question coming from the actual system designer. One would presume and hope the guy who set the DM's power and responsibilities would have a solid understanding of what those are.

I mean, there is not a “certified game designer” test, that checks whether you understand basic math, or basic group activity skills - if there were, most of the most popular RPGs never would have been made.

That said, yeah, it would be good if there were such a test, and game designers were required to understand basic group dynamics and basic probability to obtain their certification.

[King of Nowhere]

To the last four posters, I never once in this thread said that a GM shouldn’t be able to retcon.

I said that it is something that needs to involve the whole table, either at the time or under pre agreed upon condition. Which I feel that the vast majority of posters agree with, although specifics may very.

That the retcon is conditional does not mean is has to be pre-agreed.

In fact i have so far never had proper discussion about retconning privileges in any group. But retcons after misunderstandings happen anyway and everyone assumes that is normal.

actually, the part about group consensus is very unclear. even in individual posts saying the gm can do that unilaterally.

the fact is, as I said, that the gm can do everything that the players let him do. i expect my players to not object if I call a retcon. i expect it because i expect them to trust my judgment; similarily, when I play and the dm calls for something drastic, I don't object, because at my table we earned each other trust.
so, does that mean at my table we require player consensus, or we don't?
even at a table where the gm can call a retcon without consulting the players, the players are not walking away from the table, does it imply consensus?
when you work with trust, as healty groups should, it is difficult to define where consensus lay. only when there is no trust you need to set up hard rules. and most groups with no trust just disgregate.

a group like talekeal, lacking trust and with strong interpersonal conflict, yet remaining whole for years, is a very rare thing. could be a case study for a sociologist.

[False God]

Ok, I went back, reread the thread, and counted.

2 people said yes, the GM unilaterally has that power.
7 people said the GM has that power, but only in very specific situations.
8 People said that is requires the consent of the group.
1 Person said you shouldn't retcon things, but should penalize the player going forward to make up for it.
3 People said that both the GM and the players have that capability.

So unless you are busting my chops over saying "everyone" when in fact its only 19/21 people, I don't see how you can claim I am making it up.
I'm not going to go back and count, in part because I suspect what you and I interpret as "yes" and "no" might be different, and partly because I'm lazy. So I'm going to trust your count.

I think it's important to frame "consent of the group". When I DM, I have the consent of the group to run the game as I see fit. Sometimes that means doing whatever I need to whenever I need to in order to make the game function well and ensure the enjoyment of all. I would generally refer to that as passive consent. Consent was given at the start of play, and is in effect until resciended. Sometimes it's putting things to a vote and asking for active consent, approval for a specific thing to happen.

Exactly how I approach this depends on the game, my skill running it, the people, how well I know them, how well I think I know them, and how the water feels today.

To me, your categories and counting can be read a number of ways.


Again, afaict in ~150 posts only 2 people have said the DM has unilateral authority.

Although as since this thread has been out to prove me a liar since literally the first response, I should probably be treating it less like a forum conversation and more like a legal deposition and not say "everyone" to mean "the vast majority of people".
Don't play the victim, it doesn't help your case. And yes, "case" indeed. You've been on this board longer than I have, but my cursory evaluation of your posting from the way others who have been here longer than you seems to indicate a trend. As someone else pointed out, when you seem to encounter an endless stream of "unusual situations" at some point, the only common denominator is you.

But, I'm not terribly concerned with absolutes. The people who say "Yes always because they are the DM and for no other reason." and the people who say "No never." can be frankly discounted because I personally don't frame DMing as that black and white. Discounting those two groups, that leaves everyone else in some sort of middle ground where they acknowledge the DM has the power to do so, but disagree on the specifics of when, where and how the DM goes about it. That's not "yes" or "no", that's "maybe".


That's fair. There are some posters I think are full of crap, even if I am too polite to actually say it out loud, and I do have some pretty incredible stories*.

I will say though, that if I am a troll, I am one of the most dedicated in history, keeping the same story up for over 20 years (I have only posted on this forum for 15, but I was on the WoTC forum for 5+ years before that), and writing four ~50,000 word campaign diaries to support it.

For what it's worth, I have never made up any of my stories or deliberately lied about a pertinent detail (although I will fully admit that I have made mistakes, forgotten important details, and smoothed over or left out what I considered irrelevant details for the sake of clarity or brevity).

But its the internet, so there is no way I can actually prove it to you.

I suppose, if people want, I can get Brian (the GM in this question and witness to most of my horror stories) to post his side of things, I know he has a little used account on here*, although I suppose there is no way anyone could tell that it wasn't just me posting on a sock-puppet account.
I'm not concerned with if you are or not. If I'm going to respond, I will address the situation in generalities after raising an eyebrow at the specifics.


*: If I had to guess why that is, it's because I am obsessed with RPGs and am scared of strangers. This combination has caused me to stay in what I knew were toxic gaming groups for far too long, and to be super hesitant to kick out toxic people. I am also fairly stubborn and have no ability to read body language, so I tend to escalate conflicts without realizing it.
**: I really wish the WoTC forums were still up. He posted a few horror stories of his own on that one, and it was so weird to watch people react to it from the other direction.
I, at least, appreciate the introspection. My advice would be to work more on that, and I suspect you'll find yourself posting horror stories here far less. I do understand personal development is important for group interaction, but also not the job of the table, it's something you've got to undertake on your own. And again, I think increased efforts there would see greater rewards in your gaming group.

[Talakeal]

To me, your categories and counting can be read a number of ways.

Yes, they sure can, I am pretty sure I mentioned that in the post where I made the tallies.

Again though, specific count wasn't my point. Someone said I was retroactively changing the story to get the answer I was looking for, and I said that why would I do that when everyone was agreeing with me; which caused the few people who weren't agreeing with me to make a big deal about the word "everyone" instead of of "a significant majority".


Don't play the victim, it doesn't help your case. And yes, "case" indeed. You've been on this board longer than I have, but my cursory evaluation of your posting from the way others who have been here longer than you seems to indicate a trend.

My case for what exactly?

As I said, I am not quite sure what people are even mad about; people have been accusing me of being a liar since the second post, and I already admitted to and apologized for translating my games terminology to more familiar D&D terminology and making a mistake in doing so. It now seems like people are just trying to get me to admit that I am lying about anything and everything, which isn't true, but is impossible to actually prove one way or the other on the internet.


To me, your categories and counting can be read a number of ways.

Yes, they sure can, I am pretty sure I mentioned that in the post where I made the tallies.

Again though, specific count wasn't my point. Someone said I was retroactively changing the story to get the answer I was looking for, and I said that why would I do that when everyone was agreeing with me; which caused the few people who weren't agreeing with me to make a big deal about the word "everyone" instead of of "a significant majority".


As someone else pointed out, when you seem to encounter an endless stream of "unusual situations" at some point, the only common denominator is you.

So here's the thing; that can be read in (at least) two very different.

If you mean that I can't change other people, and I need to take more care in putting myself into situations, and that I need to look at what I can do to avoid bad situations and make sure I am not contributing, I fully agree.

If you mean it in the more blunt way, that I must be the toxic person who is at fault, well...

In a general sense, that is discounting that some people really do have bad runs of luck, or there is something about them that attracts abusers, and essentially boils down to victim blaming.

In my specific case, I absolutely do put up with a high degree of crap, and have zero ability to read body language and unspoken assumptions, and I am pretty stubborn and defensive, so I am sure that contributes. BUT, I would imagine that if you removed the two significant outliers (Bob and the GM I gamed under from 2014-2018), I doubt I actually have significantly more horror stories than the average person (although I have been gaming weekly for thirty years and active on forums for most of that time, so I am sure I post more as an absolute number). And, furthermore, I know I can't be the cause of these people's behavior (although I could certainly be seen as an enabler) because they do the same thing when I am not involved.

[Quertus]

If you mean it in the more blunt way, that I must be the toxic person who is at fault, well...

In a general sense, that is discounting that some people really do have bad runs of luck, or there is something about them that attracts abusers, and essentially boils down to victim blaming.

In my specific case, I absolutely do put up with a high degree of crap, and have zero ability to read body language and unspoken assumptions, and I am pretty stubborn and defensive, so I am sure that contributes. BUT, I would imagine that if you removed the two significant outliers (Bob and the GM I gamed under from 2014-2018), I doubt I actually have significantly more horror stories than the average person (although I have been gaming weekly for thirty years and active on forums for most of that time, so I am sure I post more as an absolute number). And, furthermore, I know I can't be the cause of these people's behavior (although I could certainly be seen as an enabler) because they do the same thing when I am not involved.

To be blunt, that is a very self-aware post. Kudos!

That said, it probably only covers about half of the possibilities that you should consider, if you are and want to stop being a victim. Like, maybe the criteria you use to pick your friends or new group members could contribute (especially if someone else - someone who themselves might be toxic - is doing a lot of that selection). If your post history is any indication, I’d suggest you have an above-average difficulty with clear communication (not that I can talk), although I couldn’t even make an educated guess how that contributes (although my intuition suggests that if I researched the psychology of a predator, it’d probably make sense, as a sign of social weakness and isolation or something). And, on several occasions, you’ve posted very egocentric perceptions (including in this thread, where you admitted you only notice abuse aimed at yourself, not at others). Now, I’m not a psychologist, and I don’t even play one in an RPG, but I’ll suggest that, if you want to encourage a better gaming culture than the one you’ve often found yourself in, there’s probably few better traits to have than demonstrably caring about others.

Now, I’m the opposite of you in one key way: in an RPG setting, I have about 0 tolerance for other people’s ****. So, despite my many personal horror stories, I have no experience with anything even remotely like the gaming world you live in, so my comments must be taken with an appropriate amount of salt.

Hope that helps, and good luck!

[Talakeal]

Yes, and in basketball, if you are down and injured.. you are no longer able to play in the game/period, or Until cleared by medical. They don't go down due to a twisted ankle, hobble off court, then randomly come back out and shoot a three pointer.

Is this actually true?

I am not a sports guy, but both my brother and my father (who as I mentioned above have been coaches, refs, or players all their lives) say that this is false, and that players will frequently be injured early in the game and come back and play again once they are feeling better, and all I can find in the rules is that a player must be substituted while actively bleeding, but can return to play once the bleeding is stopped.

[gbaji]

Is this actually true?

I am not a sports guy, but both my brother and my father (who as I mentioned above have been coaches, refs, or players all their lives) say that this is false, and that players will frequently be injured early in the game and come back and play again once they are feeling better, and all I can find in the rules is that a player must be substituted while actively bleeding, but can return to play once the bleeding is stopped.

How much time must pass before they can come back in varies depending on the specific sport. I think that's focusing on the wrong end of things though. The more significant point is that pretty much every sport in which there is some sort of clock involved, and where that clock stops if someone is injured also has some sort of rules to handle those situations such that a team can't just have a player fake an injury to stop the clock while the rest of the team gets back into position or whatever. In American Football, if you are injured and have to be taken off the field (which requires the clock to stop), you are required to be removed from the field, and may not return until a play has been completed. Some sports may require a period of time for the player to be "checked out and cleared". It depends.

Again though, the point is that there must be some means to prevent a player from using a faked injury to affect the game in some way benefitcial to his team. And I think that's relevant here, because if the GM feels you are using terminology (like "I'm down") in a way that gives your "side" an advantage that might not otherwise have existed, he may feel like he's being manipulated in some way. Which could lead to the sort of situation you encountered. He may be seeing your "I'm down" declaration the same way a referee might see a player pretending to be injured to get the clock to stop, allow the team to reposition, whatever. And then if you immediately proceed to act, he may think "that was a faked injury to get me to stop attacking".

Fair or not. Intended that way or not. That may be the way he's seeing this sequence of events. And that might explain why he reacted the way he did. He's the referee "punishing you" for what he percieves as you faking an injury (or at least pretending it was more serious than it was).

[Talakeal]

How much time must pass before they can come back in varies depending on the specific sport. I think that's focusing on the wrong end of things though. The more significant point is that pretty much every sport in which there is some sort of clock involved, and where that clock stops if someone is injured also has some sort of rules to handle those situations such that a team can't just have a player fake an injury to stop the clock while the rest of the team gets back into position or whatever. In American Football, if you are injured and have to be taken off the field (which requires the clock to stop), you are required to be removed from the field, and may not return until a play has been completed. Some sports may require a period of time for the player to be "checked out and cleared". It depends.

Again though, the point is that there must be some means to prevent a player from using a faked injury to affect the game in some way benefitcial to his team. And I think that's relevant here, because if the GM feels you are using terminology (like "I'm down") in a way that gives your "side" an advantage that might not otherwise have existed, he may feel like he's being manipulated in some way. Which could lead to the sort of situation you encountered. He may be seeing your "I'm down" declaration the same way a referee might see a player pretending to be injured to get the clock to stop, allow the team to reposition, whatever. And then if you immediately proceed to act, he may think "that was a faked injury to get me to stop attacking".

Fair or not. Intended that way or not. That may be the way he's seeing this sequence of events. And that might explain why he reacted the way he did. He's the referee "punishing you" for what he perceives as you faking an injury (or at least pretending it was more serious than it was).

I am well aware that the idea is that I was deceiving the DM through misleading language, or atleast that the DM thought I was deceiving him through misleading language.

The particular line of discussion I am responding to here is about whether or not I should have known "down" was misleading language; as in my vernacular (likely influenced by my families' basketball history) it means taken out of play due to an injury (which was correct in this case, my character was downed due to an injury and could not continue fighting effectively, which is why I crawled away and drank a potion).

[ngilop]

I am well aware that the idea is that I was deceiving the DM through misleading language, or atleast that the DM thought I was deceiving him through misleading language.

The particular line of discussion I am responding to here is about whether or not I should have known "down" was misleading language; as in my vernacular (likely influenced by my families' basketball history) it means taken out of play due to an injury (which was correct in this case, my character was downed due to an injury and could not continue fighting effectively, which is why I crawled away and drank a potion).

Bolded for emphasis.

But, you were not taken out of play due to injury. SO you just acknowledged that you purposely spoke misleading language. If you were taken out of play, you would not have been able to perform any action that require play. Which, crawling away and drinking a potion BOTH means you were capable of play.

[Talakeal]

Bolded for emphasis.

But, you were not taken out of play due to injury. SO you just acknowledged that you purposely spoke misleading language. If you were taken out of play, you would not have been able to perform any action that require play. Which, crawling away and drinking a potion BOTH means you were capable of play.

{Scrubbed}

I was taken out of the fight due to an injury.

Do you really, honestly, believe, that being injured and being unable to continue participating in a fight is fundamentally different from being injured and unable to continue participating in a basketball game?*


And you take that as an admission of *purposefully* using the word in an attempt to mislead?

{Scrubbed}

*And heck, even if I went with the proposed understanding of "down = unconscious" that would still be wrong as even an unconscious character can do things that require play such as but not limited to taking saving throws (or my system's equivalent).


That's just because you're using the smile word "translating" for "claiming something happened that isn't what happened."

Out of curiosity, what the heck is a "smile word"? I have never heard that expression before.

[Keltest]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I was taken out of the fight due to an injury.

Do you really, honestly, believe, that being injured and being unable to continue participating in a fight is fundamentally different from being injured and unable to continue participating in a basketball game?*


And you take that as an admission of *purposefully* using the word in an attempt to mislead?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

*And heck, even if I went with the proposed understanding of "down = unconscious" that would still be wrong as even an unconscious character can do things that require play such as but not limited to taking saving throws (or my system's equivalent).

You WERE able to continue the fight. You backed up for a second and healed specifically for that purpose. If you want to use the basketball analogy, you tripped and had to take a second to get your footing back under you.

[Talakeal]

You WERE able to continue the fight. You backed up for a second and healed specifically for that purpose. If you want to use the basketball analogy, you tripped and had to take a second to get your footing back under you.

Yes... and a basketball player is allowed to return to play after receiving treatment (or even just sitting on the bench for a moment and deciding their injuries aren't actually that bad).


Again, we can go down the rabbit hole of basketball technicalities, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that everyone at my table both understands and uses the term "down" to mean at or below zero HP / Wounds / Health Levels / Vitality, and that even if the GM was confused by it, it wasn't a deliberate attempt to deceive him.

Honestly, if it had, that would have made the situation a lot more clear cut and less confusing all around.


Also, this is neither here nor there, but my character would have literally died had there not been a healing potion on hand (barring amazing rolls); I would say that's a bit more severe than tripping and taking a second to get your footing.

[Keltest]

Yes... and a basketball player is allowed to return to play after receiving treatment (or even just sitting on the bench for a moment and deciding their injuries aren't actually that bad).


Again, we can go down the rabbit hole of basketball technicalities, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that everyone at my table both understands and uses the term "down" to mean at or below zero HP / Wounds / Health Levels / Vitality, and that even if the GM was confused by it, it wasn't a deliberate attempt to deceive him.

Honestly, if it had, that would have made the situation a lot more clear cut and less confusing all around.


Also, this is neither here nor there, but my character would have literally died had there not been a healing potion on hand (barring amazing rolls); I would say that's a bit more severe than tripping and taking a second to get your footing.

Frankly, I would be more inclined to take this at face value if you hadn't spent most of this thread making easily avoidable communication errors that confused everybody. I doubt you're doing it entirely on purpose, but everything about this situation looks like you trying to avoid responsibility for communicating clearly.

[Kish]

Out of curiosity, what the heck is a "smile word"? I have never heard that expression before.
Smile words and snarl words are words used in spindoctoring. If you want people to vote for a treaty they know nothing about, call it the "Partnership for Peace"; if you want them not to consider a protest on its merits, call the person who made it a Karen.

[Talakeal]

Frankly, I would be more inclined to take this at face value if you hadn't spent most of this thread making easily avoidable communication errors that confused everybody. I doubt you're doing it entirely on purpose, but everything about this situation looks like you trying to avoid responsibility for communicating clearly.

I admitted and apologized for making using improper terminology in my OP.

To take a step back, I have a degree in creative writing, and I took a fair number of non-fiction and technical writing classes as part of my degree. It is my understanding that translating technical jargon into terms the audience will understand is not only acceptable, but actually preferable. On this forum, where the vast majority of users are familiar with 3.5 D&D, and afaik none of the active users are familiar with my system, I find it to be simpler to translate Heart of Darkness jargon into 3.5 D&D jargon.

I had no idea that this was so contentious, or that it casts a negative light on my character / integrity as a whole, as in my experience people do that sort of thing in everyday speech all the time, and it doesn't make me distrust them or label them as pathological liars (not that I haven't met people who were pathological liars mind you, just that such communication shortcuts have no bearing on honesty as far as I can tell).

As a result, I don't see anything wrong with translating one games jargon to another, although I do acknowledge that I did so, and that it resulted in a communication error which has caused people some trouble, and I own and apologize for that.

But at no point in this thread (or the story its about) did I mean to deceive anyone, and I am not going to apologize for telling the truth or for a deception I didn't (intentionally) commit.


Honestly, I think if I had been attempting to deceive people (either at my gaming table or on the forums), I would like to think I would have crafted a more convincing story, and had been less defensive and confused and more sneaky when challenged.


Edit: So, I think I realized why my gaming group use "down" to mean out of HP (or the like). Its not from Basketball, its from Necromunda and Mordheim, which we all played extensively in the late 90s early 2000s. In those games, a fighter who loses his last wound is termed "down" and cannot fight, but they can still crawl and, potentially, be healed and return to combat in later turns.

[icefractal]

Thinking about "down" ...

If a typical D&D character was at negative HP, I would consider that "down". If my character hit negative HP, I might easily say "I'm down! Can anyone heal me?" Ditto for being KO'd by nonlethal damage. Down doesn't mean dead, "dead" means dead.

But what if the character had Diehard? IDK, I'm not sure that situation has come up (or if so I don't remember what I said). Maybe I'd say "dying" or "negative" instead? I wouldn't think it was too weird if someone said "down" though.

But at the extreme, if this was someone with Persisted Favor of the Martyr and Beastlands Ferocity, I definitely wouldn't say "down" for negative HP, because for such a character being at negative HP is usually not a pressing issue that changes anything tactically (unless the foe can dispel the buffs, ofc).

So I'm not sure where the line is, but it's not as simple as "only completely unable to get back into the fight can be called 'down'" (and for that matter, Revivify exists, so even dead doesn't mean completely unable to rejoin the fight).

[Persolus]

You can't tell me its easier to read:

My nephillim (which is the Heart of Darkness term for a half human half angel) character who is a holy templar (a character build based around melee combat, divine magic, and heavy armor) had just returned from fighting a group of Merrow (which are essentially my take on illithids) led by an argus (which is essentially my take on a beholder) when I got into an argument with Bob (that isn't his real name, but a nickname due to his resemblance to the Knights of the Dinner Table character who is also a balding munchkin) over how to split the loot; him saying that because he was better with money than me he deserves a double share...

Vs.

My Aasimar paladin had just killed a group of illithids and a beholder, when Bob told me he thinks he deserves a double share of loot because he is better with money than me.


Nor do any of those translations have any bearing on the fact matter of how the money should be split.


Here is the way you would say that:


I'm playing a half-angel equivalent of a paladin.

I just killed a bunch of not!illithids and not!beholders, when Bob and I got into an argument over the double share of the loot because...

Alternatively, you could leave out the character/monster details entirely, because it has nothing to do with the question.

You don't need to translate the details about the world, or the classes, or the precise details of the mechanics, because that's not what we care about here. However, whenever you try to translate something from one format to another, there's going to be something lost.

Your whole bit there comes off as a bit of a strawman; of course it's easier to read when you don't have a whole bunch of unnecessary details clogging it up. That doesn't mean you have to introduce untruths, because Aasimar, Paladin, Mindflayers, and Beholders all have baggage attached to them from DnD.

But your example is meaningless because nothing about that setup changed anything about the core problem - Bob wants to handle the loot.

However, in your case, the entire situation circles around the fact that your ruleset has specific rules around very low/negative HP, and there was a miscommunication about this between you and the DM. That's worth an aside to explain.

[Kish]

Edit: So, I think I realized why my gaming group use "down" to mean out of HP (or the like). Its not from Basketball, its from Necromunda and Mordheim, which we all played extensively in the late 90s early 2000s. In those games, a fighter who loses his last wound is termed "down" and cannot fight, but they can still crawl and, potentially, be healed and return to combat in later turns.
Thing is? The one thing that was clear about your account almost from the start and hasn't changed, is that the GM thought your character was more incapacitated than they were. Your "translating" had the effect of this initially appearing, here, to be because you'd literally told him that; once you untranslated so that you were actually using accurate terminology, it was too late to clarify the situation because he didn't remember exactly what he'd thought, because you were just looking for "no of course the GM can't unilaterally declare a retcon."

So whatever page you're certain your gaming group as a whole is on--it is apparent that there is some page here you and your GM were not both on. And it's not doing the assumption that you and the GM agree on a fundamental level about terminology any favors that whenever someone here tells you they disagree with you about terminology, you go straight to: you can't mean that, no human would mean that.

[kyoryu]

Here's the thing.

I don't think you're unreasonable. I don't think you're a terrible person. I don't think that you have any real malice in you. I truly believe that you're out to make as good of a game as possible. I do believe you're exasperated by the behavior of people at your table.

I do think that you have real difficulties understanding the point of view of others. I think you have real difficulties realizing that people know different things than you do, and make rational decisions based on that.

I think this has shown up in the descriptions of your horror stories. And I think it's shown up in you talking here on the forum.

You don't need to translate mechanics. The thing that would help the most is an empathetic statement of the position of the other people. In this case, that's "yeah, the DM thought my character was completely out of the fight, and unable to take further actions."

One of the things that's helped me the most in life is just assuming that people are reasonable. If "they're completely unreasonable" is removed as an explanation, then you have to ask "why would a reasonable person do this?" And that's often enlightening.

In this case, it's "a reasonable person might retcon their last action if it was based upon a misunderstood set of circumstances. And doubly so if they felt that the misunderstanding was deliberate."

That was mostly left out of the original post. And if you're tempted to say "but I didn't deliberately do that!" remember that we're talking about perception and understandings here, and not what is going on in your head... which nobody but you knows.

Here's how I might have said the opening post:

"So we were playing last week and there was a situation that seemed to be a misunderstanding. I had communicated that my character was down and in a state where they couldn't do much, but could still crawl, drink potions, etc. However, the GM thought that meant down as in unconscious. When I took my action to drink a potion the next turn, he decided to retcon what his character did and attack me a second time, as he says that's what the NPC would have done. Is this reasonable?"

That gets past unnecessary mechanical details, and gets to the heart of the contention, and also shows the POV of the GM in a way that doesn't make them look like an ogre.

[King of Nowhere]

I admitted and apologized for making using improper terminology in my OP.

To take a step back, I have a degree in creative writing, and I took a fair number of non-fiction and technical writing classes as part of my degree. It is my understanding that translating technical jargon into terms the audience will understand is not only acceptable, but actually preferable. On this forum, where the vast majority of users are familiar with 3.5 D&D, and afaik none of the active users are familiar with my system, I find it to be simpler to translate Heart of Darkness jargon into 3.5 D&D jargon.

I had no idea that this was so contentious, or that it casts a negative light on my character / integrity as a whole.

For most of us, it didn't. Only a minority of posters latched into the detail.
For that matter, whether you're an aasimar or a nephilim or a sentient potted plant makes no difference whatsoever for the purpose of the original misunderstanding. Most of us didn't comment on that either

[Talakeal]

Here's the thing.

I don't think you're unreasonable. I don't think you're a terrible person. I don't think that you have any real malice in you. I truly believe that you're out to make as good of a game as possible. I do believe you're exasperated by the behavior of people at your table.

I do think that you have real difficulties understanding the point of view of others. I think you have real difficulties realizing that people know different things than you do, and make rational decisions based on that.

I think this has shown up in the descriptions of your horror stories. And I think it's shown up in you talking here on the forum.

You don't need to translate mechanics. The thing that would help the most is an empathetic statement of the position of the other people. In this case, that's "yeah, the DM thought my character was completely out of the fight, and unable to take further actions."

One of the things that's helped me the most in life is just assuming that people are reasonable. If "they're completely unreasonable" is removed as an explanation, then you have to ask "why would a reasonable person do this?" And that's often enlightening.

In this case, it's "a reasonable person might retcon their last action if it was based upon a misunderstood set of circumstances. And doubly so if they felt that the misunderstanding was deliberate."

That was mostly left out of the original post. And if you're tempted to say "but I didn't deliberately do that!" remember that we're talking about perception and understandings here, and not what is going on in your head... which nobody but you knows.

Thank you. This is reasonable and I agree.

I will say though, I wish that either the forum or the GM had actually asked me if I intended to deceive them rather than assuming.


"So we were playing last week and there was a situation that seemed to be a misunderstanding. I had communicated that my character was down and in a state where they couldn't do much, but could still crawl, drink potions, etc. However, the GM thought that meant down as in unconscious. When I took my action to drink a potion the next turn, he decided to retcon what his character did and attack me a second time, as he says that's what the NPC would have done. Is this reasonable?"

This does convey what I meant to in a clearer manner.

Although it does leave out the real meat of what I wanted to discuss; Brian's assertion that a GM's right to rewind the game is absolute and it is laughable to think that they need the consent of the table to do so.



That gets past unnecessary mechanical details, and gets to the heart of the contention, and also shows the POV of the GM in a way that doesn't make them look like an ogre.

That one stunned me for a moment. Both because Brian's nickname irl is "El Ogre" because he is nearly seven feet tall and over 400 lbs and because the monster in question during the fight was in fact an ogre. So I was like "Of course he looks like an ogre!"


Your whole bit there comes off as a bit of a strawman; of course it's easier to read when you don't have a whole bunch of unnecessary details clogging it up. That doesn't mean you have to introduce untruths, because Aasimar, Paladin, Mindflayers, and Beholders all have baggage attached to them from DnD.

But your example is meaningless because nothing about that setup changed anything about the core problem - Bob wants to handle the loot.

However, in your case, the entire situation circles around the fact that your ruleset has specific rules around very low/negative HP, and there was a miscommunication about this between you and the DM. That's worth an aside to explain.

It does come off as a straw-man to me as well.

Which was kind of my whole point; fixating on my use of the word "down" and the precise meaning thereof or focusing on my translating game terminology is, by mind, a strawman that has little or no bearing on whether I was lying to the GM, lying to the forum, or fabricating the story as a whole.

It is, at best tangential. But I have never had the peace of mind to avoid getting defensive and responding to such things in kind.

[Keltest]

It does come off as a straw-man to me as well.

Which was kind of my whole point; fixating on my use of the word "down" and the precise meaning thereof or focusing on my translating game terminology is, by mind, a strawman that has little or no bearing on whether I was lying to the GM, lying to the forum, or fabricating the story as a whole.

It is, at best tangential. But I have never had the peace of mind to avoid getting defensive and responding to such things in kind.

It's not tangential, it is in fact the entire point. The words you use matter. You cant just vomit words onto the screen or into the air and expect people to understand what you mean. Which is why several of us are now so skeptical of everything you say. We, quite frankly, cannot be sure that what you say is actually what you mean, whether youre doing it intentionally or not.

[Talakeal]

It's not tangential, it is in fact the entire point. The words you use matter. You can't just vomit words onto the screen or into the air and expect people to understand what you mean. Which is why several of us are now so skeptical of everything you say. We, quite frankly, cannot be sure that what you say is actually what you mean, whether your doing it intentionally or not.

Which is, imo, not a rational or realistic way to look at the world.

I have never met someone who doesn't talk in generalizations and shorthand rather than breaking down the entire truth. I imagine if you went through the back catalogue of any journalist or non-fiction author you would find scores of incidents where they used imprecise language, summarized events, paraphrased quotes or translated jargon into layman's terms, or were flat out wrong about the facts. That doesn't mean you throw them into the category of "unreliable" and doubt everything they say. The same for forum posters and blog authors.

For example, we have spent pages discussing the precise meaning of the word "down" and how it is not unreasonable or dishonest for someone to use it to mean someone who is at 0 hp, injured, but still capable of crawling around and returning to the battle. Yet Rick Priestley (and his co authors) have done exactly that in the Warhammer skirmish games. Does this mean that from now on when I am reading a Warhammer rulebook I should question every rule I read because I have to question every word they make as they have proven themselves to be "unreliable" and I "can't be sure that what they say is actually what they mean?"*

Of course not!

Honestly, I think in my case its a sort of reverse boy who cried wolf. I have gamed with an unusually high number of eccentric people, and because I continue to put up with them and tell stories about them, people are convinced that I must be a liar and are looking for any technicality to "prove" it. In this case, you went into this thread with the perspective that I was lying, (it was literally in the very first response) and rather than make a mistake you are doubling down on the assertion trying to find any little bit of imprecise language to prove that I am dishonest, although I am positive if you approached 90% of the forumites post histories with the same attitude you could find similar technicalities to tear them apart over.


*: Although, for the record, a lot of rules authors do write rules that don't mean what they intended to. The source of the whole "RAW vs. RAI" debate. I don't really hold this against the authors though, writing clearly is hard, especially on a deadline, or working as part of a team.


For most of us, it didn't. Only a minority of posters latched into the detail.

For that matter, whether you're an aasimar or a nephilim or a sentient potted plant makes no difference whatsoever for the purpose of the original misunderstanding. Most of us didn't comment on that either

As you can see from the above, it may be a minority, but it is a very vocal minority!

[Keltest]

Which is, imo, not a rational or realistic way to look at the world.

You don't think its realistic or rational to want people to have commonly understood meanings for words to facilitate accurate communication?

[Talakeal]

You don't think its realistic or rational to want people to have commonly understood meanings for words to facilitate accurate communication?

Sure it is.

But to tell someone you now question everything they say because they use a word in a manner that isn’t technically precise enough for you or because they translate jargon into language their audience is familiar with is not.

Also, most every word in English has multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings and lots of implications. Even more so when we get into slang and game jargon. So in most cases, its not possible.

[Keltest]

Sure it is.

But to tell someone you now question everything they say because they use a word in a manner that isn’t technically precise enough for you or because they translate jargon into language their audience is familiar with is not.

Also, most every word in English has multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings and lots of implications. Even more so when we get into slang and game jargon. So in most cases, its not possible.

Let me put it this way. You have a pattern of miscommunicating. My pattern recognition has picked up on that and I am reacting accordingly.

[Kish]

Which is, imo, not a rational or realistic way to look at the world.

I have never met someone who doesn't talk in generalizations and shorthand rather than breaking down the entire truth. I imagine if you went through the back catalogue of any journalist or non-fiction author you would find scores of incidents where they used imprecise language, summarized events, paraphrased quotes or translated jargon into layman's terms, or were flat out wrong about the facts. That doesn't mean you throw them into the category of "unreliable" and doubt everything they say.

Sure. That's because none of the above includes saying outright, "What I reported happened was never meant to be what actually happened, nor will it be next time." The difference is between "oops I made a mistake" and "I declare the things I intentionally misrepresent every time trivial, how dare you not follow me there?"



For example, we have spent pages discussing the precise meaning of the word "down" and how it is not unreasonable or dishonest for someone to use it to mean someone who is at 0 hp, injured, but still capable of crawling around and returning to the battle. Yet Rick Priestley (and his co authors) have done exactly that in the Warhammer skirmish games. Does this mean that from now on when I am reading a Warhammer rulebook I should question every rule I read because I have to question every word they make as they have proven themselves to be "unreliable" and I "can't be sure that what they say is actually what they mean?"*

Again. You keep saying you apologized; you also keep trying to score a point by asserting that what you allegedly apologized for was good enough anyway. Pick one. You literally claimed that your GM did and didn't think your character was unconscious a page apart. But instead of saying, "Oh yeah, 'down' can be confusing, I won't use it when I'm not using specific and accurate game terms for the system in question next time" you're now trying to play a "this completely unrelated game system uses this term this way" card.


Honestly, I think in my case its a sort of reverse boy who cried wolf. I have gamed with an unusually high number of eccentric people, and because I continue to put up with them and tell stories about them, people are convinced that I must be a liar and are looking for any technicality to "prove" it. In this case, you went into this thread with the perspective that I was lying, (it was literally in the very first response) and rather than make a mistake you are doubling down on the assertion trying to find any little bit of imprecise language to prove that I am dishonest, although I am positive if you approached 90% of the forumites post histories with the same attitude you could find similar technicalities to tear them apart over.

I am positive that if you went over 90% of the forumites' post histories, you would find something you would wave around and say, "See, a similar technicality!" while your current detractors would be going, "Uh? No, that was an honest and tiny mistake and you announced loudly that you weren't trying to say the truth, never would in the future, and considered such an expectation inhuman."

...because if you're interested in communicating rather than in establishing that you're a very good communicator who needs to change nothing, it's coming a distant fifth here.

I doubt very much that it has anything to do with "reverse boy who cried wolf." Very few people are even speculating now; we're just believing what you say about yourself. You've dug a hole halfway to China, and will keep digging because you think you're entitled to vindication here.

[kyoryu]

Which is, imo, not a rational or realistic way to look at the world.

I'm not sure I agree with that.


I have never met someone who doesn't talk in generalizations and shorthand rather than breaking down the entire truth. I imagine if you went through the back catalogue of any journalist or non-fiction author you would find scores of incidents where they used imprecise language, summarized events, paraphrased quotes or translated jargon into layman's terms, or were flat out wrong about the facts. That doesn't mean you throw them into the category of "unreliable" and doubt everything they say. The same for forum posters and blog authors.

Of course. What is expected, however, is that the pertinent information is shared and done so in a clear manner. What is pertinent? I mean, that's really anything that is really going to be germane to either your point or that of the other person. And since it's mostly on the part of the person communicating to be clear, I'd err on the side of overcommunication.


For example, we have spent pages discussing the precise meaning of the word "down" and how it is not unreasonable or dishonest for someone to use it to mean someone who is at 0 hp, injured, but still capable of crawling around and returning to the battle. Yet Rick Priestley (and his co authors) have done exactly that in the Warhammer skirmish games. Does this mean that from now on when I am reading a Warhammer rulebook I should question every rule I read because I have to question every word they make as they have proven themselves to be "unreliable" and I "can't be sure that what they say is actually what they mean?"*

Of course not!

I think you're mixing up a few things.

First off, whether or not you think it was clear, it obviously was not. So there's a lack of clarity there that caused a problem, and I think that it's worth taking that as a lesson going forward. At the end of the day, you didn't communicate sufficiently. We weren't there. We don't know your system. Frankly, I don't want to know the details. But the breakdown in communication is obvious, and the entire conversation is predicated on it.

So, there's no point in arguing whether it was sufficient or not. It wasn't. You did not effectively communicate what you were trying to communicate. Arguing about "well they should have known" is frankly irrelevant - they didn't. Arguing about the clarity of down is irrelevant. It wasn't clear in this situation. There is nothing that can be said that change that. Whether or not you think it should have been clear doesn't matter. There seems to be a lot of "I have to prove I was right because otherwise I'd be wrong and bad" and I think that gets in the way. I'd look at it more like "hey, this went wrong. Let's assume everybody is good and reasonable - how do we stop this from happening next time?"

Secondly, "unreliable" does not have to mean "dishonest". It simply means that, for whatever reason, the narrator's account misses important information. And, to be honest, all posters are unreliable narrators, to a certain extent, as we all perceive things primarily from our own perception. I do think you do this more than others, though as I said above, i don't think there's any malice or intent behind it. I think it's just a skill you have some problems with, and could develop more.

If someone can't see the color red, they can't perceive those things. If something bright red comes up to them and smacks them, they might say "hey, that thing came out of nowhere!" It's not that they're lying. However, they're missing important information due to their inability to see red. If they're still unaware that they can't see red, that makes it worse. That does not mean that they are dishonest - it just means that they're not getting all of the information available. In that case, you'd probably expect them to be aware of this and mention it, but it's an artificial scenario. In situations where you're literally unaware of the information, or that you can't perceive it it's a lot harder. At any rate, you can tell that there very well might be important information that isn't being transmitted - their picture of what happened is not necessarily complete, even without them being deliberately dishonest. And that's basically it - I think some people on hte forum here suspect, basically, that you can't see red. And not only that, but it sometimes can seem like you deny the very existence of red things.

Basically, your horror stories have had two patterns I've seen:

1) You not understanding a scenario where someone may have had less information than you did, and got upset. When this was suggested, your common response was frequently "yes, but this is what it is", which missed the point that your players didn't know that.
2) You not understanding communication that people gave you, and often not giving salient details. When these details come out, you often refuse these other perspectives.

The point, again, isn't "Talakeal bad". I don't think you are. I do think you have some areas to improve (as do we all). And these types of issues are fairly common, even if they seem more severe in your cases.

[Talakeal]

I'm not sure I agree with that.



Of course. What is expected, however, is that the pertinent information is shared and done so in a clear manner. What is pertinent? I mean, that's really anything that is really going to be germane to either your point or that of the other person. And since it's mostly on the part of the person communicating to be clear, I'd err on the side of overcommunication.



I think you're mixing up a few things.

First off, whether or not you think it was clear, it obviously was not. So there's a lack of clarity there that caused a problem, and I think that it's worth taking that as a lesson going forward. At the end of the day, you didn't communicate sufficiently. We weren't there. We don't know your system. Frankly, I don't want to know the details. But the breakdown in communication is obvious, and the entire conversation is predicated on it.

So, there's no point in arguing whether it was sufficient or not. It wasn't. You did not effectively communicate what you were trying to communicate. Arguing about "well they should have known" is frankly irrelevant - they didn't. Arguing about the clarity of down is irrelevant. It wasn't clear in this situation. There is nothing that can be said that change that. Whether or not you think it should have been clear doesn't matter. There seems to be a lot of "I have to prove I was right because otherwise I'd be wrong and bad" and I think that gets in the way. I'd look at it more like "hey, this went wrong. Let's assume everybody is good and reasonable - how do we stop this from happening next time?"

Secondly, "unreliable" does not have to mean "dishonest". It simply means that, for whatever reason, the narrator's account misses important information. And, to be honest, all posters are unreliable narrators, to a certain extent, as we all perceive things primarily from our own perception. I do think you do this more than others, though as I said above, i don't think there's any malice or intent behind it. I think it's just a skill you have some problems with, and could develop more.

If someone can't see the color red, they can't perceive those things. If something bright red comes up to them and smacks them, they might say "hey, that thing came out of nowhere!" It's not that they're lying. However, they're missing important information due to their inability to see red. If they're still unaware that they can't see red, that makes it worse. That does not mean that they are dishonest - it just means that they're not getting all of the information available. In that case, you'd probably expect them to be aware of this and mention it, but it's an artificial scenario. In situations where you're literally unaware of the information, or that you can't perceive it it's a lot harder. At any rate, you can tell that there very well might be important information that isn't being transmitted - their picture of what happened is not necessarily complete, even without them being deliberately dishonest. And that's basically it - I think some people on hte forum here suspect, basically, that you can't see red. And not only that, but it sometimes can seem like you deny the very existence of red things.

Basically, your horror stories have had two patterns I've seen:

1) You not understanding a scenario where someone may have had less information than you did, and got upset. When this was suggested, your common response was frequently "yes, but this is what it is", which missed the point that your players didn't know that.
2) You not understanding communication that people gave you, and often not giving salient details. When these details come out, you often refuse these other perspectives.

The point, again, isn't "Talakeal bad". I don't think you are. I do think you have some areas to improve (as do we all). And these types of issues are fairly common, even if they seem more severe in your cases.

This is all reasonable.

What is making me defensive is people insisting that I deliberately lied to / mislead my GM, or that "no reasonable person would use 'down' to mean injured to the point where they can no longer continue fighting" or stating that because I didn't get all of the details right the entire story must be made up.

Obviously, I said something unclear or ambiguous to the GM, or that either the GM or I just flat out misunderstood the situation. That's evident. And I will fully own up to that and explore it, apologizing as need be.

But insisting that I am deliberately lying when I know that I am not puts me in a no win situation where I either have to defend myself (which is perceived as lying) or actually lie and agree that I was lying (which is perceived as me admitting to being a liar).

[gbaji]

The particular line of discussion I am responding to here is about whether or not I should have known "down" was misleading language; as in my vernacular (likely influenced by my families' basketball history) it means taken out of play due to an injury (which was correct in this case, my character was downed due to an injury and could not continue fighting effectively, which is why I crawled away and drank a potion).

I think that several people have pointed out that it doesn't really matter what the terminology means to you, but how the GM interpreted it. He clearly believe that you were telling him that your character was unconscious and unable to take an action even to heal yourself. Otherwise he would not have reacted the way he did.



I do think that you have real difficulties understanding the point of view of others. I think you have real difficulties realizing that people know different things than you do, and make rational decisions based on that.

Kyoryu is absolutely correct here. There's a huge difference between what you think and what someone else thinks. And most conflicts derive from this and *not* because someone actually agrees with your terminology/intepretation/whatever but is just being malicious for <reasons>.


You don't need to translate mechanics. The thing that would help the most is an empathetic statement of the position of the other people. In this case, that's "yeah, the DM thought my character was completely out of the fight, and unable to take further actions."

One of the things that's helped me the most in life is just assuming that people are reasonable. If "they're completely unreasonable" is removed as an explanation, then you have to ask "why would a reasonable person do this?" And that's often enlightening.

In this case, it's "a reasonable person might retcon their last action if it was based upon a misunderstood set of circumstances. And doubly so if they felt that the misunderstanding was deliberate."

This x1000. If you start with "this person is being intentionally unreasonable", you're always going to fail. There's no benefit to this path, only conflict. If, when you have a disagreement, you instead ask "what reasonable rationale might make someone take the other position on that", you'll find that often the actual source of the disagrement is in a completely different location.

In this particular example, the disagreement is over the declared status of a character and what that meant in game terms. Talakeal thought he was saying "I'm unable to fight, but can heal myself with a potion", while the GM thought he was saying "I'm unable to do anything at all until someone else heals me". And it doesn't actually matter who is "right" or "wrong". What matters is that this was clearly where the problem lay.

Interpreting this as "The GM knew exactly what I meant, but was just upset with me for <some reason> and decided to retcon the round to kill my character", and then spinning off on a tangental discussion of whether it's fair for a malicious GM to do such a thing, really misses the core point. Drop the assumption that either side was acting in an intentional malicious manner, and you will arrive at the better problem, and thus a solution (try to better communicate such things in the future).

Putting this here:


That was mostly left out of the original post. And if you're tempted to say "but I didn't deliberately do that!" remember that we're talking about perception and understandings here, and not what is going on in your head... which nobody but you knows.


What is making me defensive is people insisting that I deliberately lied to / mislead my GM, or that "no reasonable person would use 'down' to mean injured to the point where they can no longer continue fighting" or stating that because I didn't get all of the details right the entire story must be made up.

Talakeal. Do you see how you are doing exactly what Kyoryu just said? No one's saying you deliberately mislead the GM. It's possible to say something that is misleading without intending to mislead someone.


But insisting that I am deliberately lying when I know that I am not puts me in a no win situation where I either have to defend myself (which is perceived as lying) or actually lie and agree that I was lying (which is perceived as me admitting to being a liar).

You honestly don't see a middle ground? Where you did not lie, but did mistakenly use terminology which was misleading to the GM? Or even used very corrrect game system terminology and the GM mistakenly misunderstood?

It's possible to do something without intending to do that thing. That's called a mistake. People do it all the time. You said something you thought meant X. The GM heard what you said and thought you meant Y. There is no right or wrong here. Neither of you are "to blame" for this. And there's absolutely zero value to exploring the meaning of the words and trying to force a "correct" interpretation that all parties should have known about from the start.

The only victory condition here is recognizing that these sorts of misunderstandings can and do happen, and endeavoring in the future to engage in greater clarity, and when it appears that a misunderstanding has occurred, to default to that assumption *first*. Ask "what did you mean?" or "what did you think I meant?". Then take that persons answer as the truth. And then go from there.

[Talakeal]

I think that several people have pointed out that it doesn't really matter what the terminology means to you, but how the GM interpreted it. He clearly believe that you were telling him that your character was unconscious and unable to take an action even to heal yourself. Otherwise he would not have reacted the way he did.

Again though, that is what the forum believes, but that is not what either the GM or I believe.

At the time I was confused as fudge, and thought that I had clearly communicated that I was at 0 HP, but the GM had forgotten that my willpower was high enough to still act while dying. The GM now says its because he jumped the gun and thought I intended to continue fighting (at that moment) rather than trying to back off and heal.

But yeah, it is clearly possible that the situation stemmed from a mutual misunderstanding / miscommunication. Where I felt the GM crossed the line was that when I asked him what was going on, he responded with mockery that lasted the rest of the session.


Kyoryu is absolutely correct here. There's a huge difference between what you think and what someone else thinks. And most conflicts derive from this and *not* because someone actually agrees with your terminology/intepretation/whatever but is just being malicious for <reasons>.

Totally agree.

Honestly, I think a lot of the problems I have on these forums is that I assume everyone is discussing things in good faith and if I can only clearly articulate my point of view I can bring them around.


Talakeal. Do you see how you are doing exactly what Kyoryu just said? No one's saying you deliberately mislead the GM. It's possible to say something that is misleading without intending to mislead someone.

Clearly some people are saying I am deliberately misleading the DM (or lying to the forum about the story as a whole).


...but you did basically lie to the DM when you said you were down when you were apparently still conscious and mobile...


...SO you just acknowledged that you purposely spoke misleading language...


...I am not sure if you are aware of what you did: you engaged in the meta game of "try to pull a fast one on the GM".
The GM became a bit cross when he figured out that you did that.
Human nature, 101.


When you dropped to 0 hp, you said "I'm down." To be clear, the ONLY reasonable way for the DM and other players to take this is "I'm unconscious or dead, but I'm out of the game". No reasonable person would take this as "I'm at 0 hp and continuing to fight would be suicide, so i'm going to crawl away and drink a potion."

Period. End of.

Its not nobody. Of course, as I just got accused of gaslighting for referring to ~91% of posters as everybody, I suppose I don't have any room to talk.

But this is why the thread is being dragged down into debates about honesty and trying to prove things by looking at technicalities than the much more reasonable discussion that you and Kyoru are proposing.


You honestly don't see a middle ground? Where you did not lie, but did mistakenly use terminology which was misleading to the GM? Or even used very corrrect game system terminology and the GM mistakenly misunderstood?

It's possible to do something without intending to do that thing. That's called a mistake. People do it all the time. You said something you thought meant X. The GM heard what you said and thought you meant Y. There is no right or wrong here. Neither of you are "to blame" for this. And there's absolutely zero value to exploring the meaning of the words and trying to force a "correct" interpretation that all parties should have known about from the start.

The only victory condition here is recognizing that these sorts of misunderstandings can and do happen, and endeavoring in the future to engage in greater clarity, and when it appears that a misunderstanding has occurred, to default to that assumption *first*. Ask "what did you mean?" or "what did you think I meant?". Then take that persons answer as the truth. And then go from there.

Yes absolutely.

I am sure this IS what happened.

I just don't believe (and neither does my GM or afaik anyone else in my gaming group) that it stemmed from the usage of the word "down" to mean 0 HP as in my social circle that is very common vernacular, likely taken from Necromunda.

[Lacco]

Again though, that is what the forum believes, but that is not what either the GM or I believe.

One thing to bear in mind: the forum is not a homogenous entity. And even though there are many active users, it's safe to assume they do not represent a majority of opinions, just majority of actively participating opinions.

So what the forum believes is irrelevant. It's best to engage with individuals in debate to find out the best possible advice for you, or to arrive at something one would never figure out by himself. That's what this forum usually delivers for me: a new view, something I'd not consider.

Seeking approval or consensus in a forum is a dangerous thing: people will argument (I don't mean 'argue in bad faith', but 'debate using arguments') both sides just for the sake of having a productive debate. And unilateral consensus is something that usually stops debates.


Honestly, I think a lot of the problems I have on these forums is that I assume everyone is discussing things in good faith and if I can only clearly articulate my point of view I can bring them around.

Most people around here are discussing things in good faith.

Most people bring their own assumptions, expectations, vocabulary and arguments. That complicates things.

Some people bring their own goals and motivations - and may argue to achieve them, even if it does not lead to the truth. That complicates things further.

And even if you articulate clearly your point of view, your point of view may be wrong (either subjectively by the responder, or even objectively). If your goal is to bring people around to see things your way... well, can't help you there. I'd suggest to rethink your goals, but hey - it's your time. I'm here to discuss things, share my experience and learn new stuff (like the time I finally understood how to contextualize the D&D combat mechanics based on very clear explanation). And have fun, ideally.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, the forum is not homogenous.

In situations like this, I'd look for the people that seem:

1) insightful
2) genuinely helpful
3) willing to call you out when they think you're wrong
4) preferably can do so in a gentle way

For deeper advice, that's all golden stuff. For just a survey, it doesn't really matter :)

The others? Take their input lightly.

[Talakeal]

I wanted to apologize for letting this thread get to me, especially to Wintermoot. I will go back and edit some of the harshness out of my earlier posts.

[Batcathat]

I wanted to apologize for letting this thread get to me, especially to Wintermoot. I will go back and edit some of the harshness out of my earlier posts.

I must admit I'm a little amused by retconning posts in a thread about retconning. :smalltongue:

[Slipjig]

(I might ask for clarification though. And sometimes that isn't enough. For example, one time I had a marksman dominated, and he told me he was "out of ammo". I asked "Out out?" and he said "Yes, completely out." So I had him drop his gun and melee. Then, when the mind control broke, he proceeded to reload and continue shooting enemies. I said I thought he was "completely out of ammunition" and he said yes, his cylinder was completely empty, but he still had plenty of reloads in his bandolier.)
That's not "clarification", that's a player blatantly lying to the GM.

I would have told him he couldn't shoot anymore until he found a new supply of ammo.

[Kish]

Perhaps ironically, I find "I'm out of ammo...yes completely out none left in my gun...oh you meant in my bandolier too?" an understandable confusion, and "I'm down*, meaning ow and ow and also I'll be drinking a healing potion next round on my initiative" not. As a GM, I would ask a clarification question with more words, and especially more unique words, than "Out out?"

*Take all the "or some other vaguely related phrasing" as read, multiple times over.

[Slipjig]

Perhaps ironically, I find "I'm out of ammo...yes completely out none left in my gun...oh you meant in my bandolier too?" an understandable confusion, and "I'm down*, meaning ow and ow and also I'll be drinking a healing potion next round on my initiative" not. As a GM, I would ask a clarification question with more words, and especially more unique words, than "Out out?"

*Take all the "or some other vaguely related phrasing" as read, multiple times over.

If he had said, "My gun is empty", sure. Or even if he had said, "I'm out of ammo", and the DM hadn't followed up with a clarifying question, MAYBE that's a miscommunication.

But if he says, "I'm out of ammo," the DM asks, "Out out?" and he replies, "Yes, completely out," when he does, in fact, still have ammo in his inventory... no, there's ZERO chance that's a misunderstanding.

[TaiLiu]

Yes. In general, the GM can absolutely declare a rewind or a retcon. This happened in my game some sessions ago. Of course, there needs to be a level of trust and communication between everyone for rewinds or retcons to go well. But that's the case for all situations. After all, the GM's not an impartial referee bound by rigid rules and regulations.


But if he says, "I'm out of ammo," the DM asks, "Out out?" and he replies, "Yes, completely out," when he does, in fact, still have ammo in his inventory... no, there's ZERO chance that's a misunderstanding.
Natural language is ambiguous. I could totally see myself saying yes to "out out?" I would just assume that the GM was asking me the question again.

[Talakeal]

After all, the GM's not an impartial referee bound by rigid rules and regulations.

Out of curiosity, is this sentence meant to imply that the GM has greater authority to ignore the rules / wishes of the table because they aren't bound by regulations or does it mean they should be more careful about such things because they aren't impartial?


Natural language is ambiguous. I could totally see myself saying yes to "out out?" I would just assume that the GM was asking me the question again.

But then by responding with "completely out" really feels deceptive to me.

Honestly, saying you were "figuratively" out of ammunition doesn't make much sense with a six shooter anyway.

But again, no way to prove his intent, so I just sighed and moved on.

[TaiLiu]

Out of curiosity, is this sentence meant to imply that the GM has greater authority to ignore the rules / wishes of the table because they aren't bound by regulations or does it mean they should be more careful about such things because they aren't impartial?
Neither. What I meant was that a GM and a sports referee have different roles, despite some surface-level similarities and duties.

The referee's job is to make fair and impartial decisions regarding the rules the player needs to follow. They themselves are bound by rules as well. Certainly they shouldn't let prior experience with the players affect their rulings. That's bias, which is bad.

The GM's role varies from table to table. They also have to make difficult decisions as well. But in most or all of them, they should let prior experience affect the game, their rulings, and the way they interpret what the players do. Conversely, the players should, too. If a long-time player says they're out of ammo and later it turns out they didn't, I'm gonna assume it was a miscommunication. If my long-time GM asks to do a retcon, I'm probably gonna agree, because I trust that their decision is intended to benefit everyone in the game.

There's this relationship that's been built up over time that biases me to trust my player or GM, which is good. I think it's a mistake to ask whether a GM has certain powers or not in general. That's decided, either implicitly or explicitly, via the game system and social agreement.


But then by responding with "completely out" really feels deceptive to me.

Honestly, saying you were "figuratively" out of ammunition doesn't make much sense with a six shooter anyway.

But again, no way to prove his intent, so I just sighed and moved on.
Right. I'm not saying that your player wasn't lying. Certainly you know him better than us. If you say he was lying, I believe you.

I'm just disagreeing that you can make assumptions about whether someone is lying or not based on the exact words in the conversation. "I mean no disrespect" and "I don't mean no disrespect" can mean the exact same thing, after all.

[Pauly]

Having thought some more there is another situation where I am prepared to offer my players a retcon.
It is when they collectively do something that is contrary to the lore and the game mechanics. It might be because they’re used to playing a different system, they’ve had a bad day and want to vent, or they are frustrated because en event in the campaign is more difficult than expected.

In a situation where the players (plural) make a set of decisions that the characters (plural) wouldn’t. Some examples
- players starting a close range no cover gunfight in Cyberpunk because they were used to the non-lethal combat of D&D.
- Players forgetting they are supposed to be following the code of Chivalry in Pendragon and execute surrendered foes to steal their gear.

In such a case I’m prepared to offer a one time only offer to retcon the campaign back to where it was before it came unstuck.

This is rare and unusual. I think I’ve offered it twice in 30 odd years of gaming.

[gbaji]

Having thought some more there is another situation where I am prepared to offer my players a retcon.
It is when they collectively do something that is contrary to the lore and the game mechanics. It might be because they’re used to playing a different system, they’ve had a bad day and want to vent, or they are frustrated because en event in the campaign is more difficult than expected.

In a situation where the players (plural) make a set of decisions that the characters (plural) wouldn’t. Some examples
- players starting a close range no cover gunfight in Cyberpunk because they were used to the non-lethal combat of D&D.
- Players forgetting they are supposed to be following the code of Chivalry in Pendragon and execute surrendered foes to steal their gear.

In such a case I’m prepared to offer a one time only offer to retcon the campaign back to where it was before it came unstuck.

This is rare and unusual. I think I’ve offered it twice in 30 odd years of gaming.

Yeah. Honestly though, this is the kind of situation where the GM should really step in and ask "do you really want to do that?", and then follow up with "Um... Here's why this maybe isn't a great idea", perhaps followed up with some sort of lore/tactics roll (with massive bonuses) and "Your character knows from <experience> that this is a really bad idea". If the players really do insist on pushing forward with this anyway, then that's on them at that point IMO.

Which ties into TaiLiu's comment earlier that the GMs role is more than just rules referee. The GM actually presents the game setting to the players and guides them in this exact sort of thing. If the players are ever proposing an action that the GM thinks their characters would know not to do, it really is the GMs responsibility to make this very very clear to the players. Not just a vague "are you sure?", but a very very clear explanation as to why in this game setting, with these characters, with these "rules" this is a "really bad idea". What the GM should never do is set up the players with some sort of "gotcha" scenario where the players think what they are doing is reasonable and whatnot, but the GM knows (but doesn't tell them) that it's a sure path to disaster.

If the characters should know something, it's the GMs job to tell them. Period.

[Pauly]

Yeah. Honestly though, this is the kind of situation where the GM should really step in and ask "do you really want to do that?", and then follow up with "Um... Here's why this maybe isn't a great idea", perhaps followed up with some sort of lore/tactics roll (with massive bonuses) and "Your character knows from <experience> that this is a really bad idea". If the players really do insist on pushing forward with this anyway, then that's on them at that point IMO.

Which ties into TaiLiu's comment earlier that the GMs role is more than just rules referee. The GM actually presents the game setting to the players and guides them in this exact sort of thing. If the players are ever proposing an action that the GM thinks their characters would know not to do, it really is the GMs responsibility to make this very very clear to the players. Not just a vague "are you sure?", but a very very clear explanation as to why in this game setting, with these characters, with these "rules" this is a "really bad idea". What the GM should never do is set up the players with some sort of "gotcha" scenario where the players think what they are doing is reasonable and whatnot, but the GM knows (but doesn't tell them) that it's a sure path to disaster.

If the characters should know something, it's the GMs job to tell them. Period.

I agree entirely that most of the time the GM should and will catch it. It’s just sometimes events happen quickly or it blindsides the GM and they go “umm OK sure” then 5 minutes later it hits just how bad it is.
Again this is (or at least should be) a very rare case and something many tables will never come across.

If it’s just one or two players I will try to let the other players deal with it IC first.

Edit to add.
Basically it for when the whole table screws up. The players for doing things that their characters wouldn’t and the GM for not catching it in time.

[AvatarVecna]

As is frequently the case, there is an XKCD for this:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/misinterpretation_2x.png

and the mouseover text:

"But there are seven billion people in the world! I can't possibly stop to consider how ALL of them might interpret something!"

"Ah yes, there's no middle ground between 'taking personal responsibility for the thoughts and feelings of every single person on Earth' and 'covering your eyes and ears and yelling logically correct statements into the void.' That's a very insightful point and not at all inane."

The whole problem that occurred during the session comes down to a miscommunication between you and the DM. That's fine, miscommunications happen. But you're trying to avoid 100% of the blame for that miscommunication as if no reasonable person could ever interpret what you said the same way the DM did, despite evidence to the contrary. For the record, I think the DM does in fact have unilateral authority to declare retcons of rounds, sessions, or full-blown campaigns. Their power over the game world and the characters is pretty absolute. Their power over the players is much more limited, if nigh-nonexistent. If the players have issue with the DM declaring a retcon, they can argue about it, and maybe they convince the DM to retcon the retcon. But if the DM is insistent...well, it's their game. If this is what happens in their game, you can either knuckle under, or go play a different game. But what can't happen is "you proceed to continue taking your turn, ignoring what the DM told you happens" - that's just "playing a different game" in that you're now trying to run your own game while pretending it's still his. It's like trying to insist your fanfiction is the original book. Maybe the original book is trash nonsense and your fanfiction is a much much better story, but it's still fundamentally not the same story. You're not telling it, you're re-telling it.

The whole problem in this thread is that the way you've presented the story seems pretty tailored to making you look like the poor guy who was just trying to heal himself as the rules clearly allow and your DM as some kind of kooky time tyrant bending reality on a whim to spite you specifically for having the gall to take a turn after his bad guy pasted you and was such a sore winner he didn't even bother properly finishing you off because he figured you knew you were outclassed. Based on what else you've said later in the thread, it sounds like the story the way it was initially told is inaccurate, whether intentionally or not, and that casts doubts on the accuracy of similar stories you've told elsewhere.

[Talakeal]

For the record, I think the DM does in fact have unilateral authority to declare retcons of rounds, sessions, or full-blown campaigns. Their power over the game world and the characters is pretty absolute. Their power over the players is much more limited, if nigh-nonexistent. If the players have issue with the DM declaring a retcon, they can argue about it, and maybe they convince the DM to retcon the retcon. But if the DM is insistent...well, it's their game. If this is what happens in their game, you can either knuckle under, or go play a different game. But what can't happen is "you proceed to continue taking your turn, ignoring what the DM told you happens" - that's just "playing a different game" in that you're now trying to run your own game while pretending it's still his. It's like trying to insist your fanfiction is the original book. Maybe the original book is trash nonsense and your fanfiction is a much much better story, but it's still fundamentally not the same story. You're not telling it, you're re-telling it.

I wish you had posted this back on page one, we might have gotten an interesting discussion out of this thread.

You appear to be the first person who actually fully agrees with Brian.

Its an interesting perspective to consider the game the GM's sole property, I have always felt that it was far more collaborative. I suppose colloquially though we do refer to it as "My game" or "You're game."

I am pretty sure if I wanted to I could kick Brian out of the group and take over GMing the same campaign. I am pretty sure that would turn the whole game into fan-fiction in your analogy, but that analogy kind of breaks down when the "fan-fiction" authors were the ones who wrote a significant portion of the original text. To further the analogy, I would never consider the Dragonlance prequel book The Soul Forge to be fan-fiction just because only one of the two original authors had a hand in it.


The whole problem that occurred during the session comes down to a miscommunication between you and the DM. That's fine, miscommunications happen. But you're trying to avoid 100% of the blame for that miscommunication as if no reasonable person could ever interpret what you said the same way the DM did, despite evidence to the contrary.

I am absolutely certain a miscommunication happened, and I am willing to say we are both at blame for it.

But some posters in the thread seems insistent that I intentionally misled the GM by using the word "down" and that no reasonable person would use down to mean injured and unable to fight effectively; and I am saying that I was not intentionally trying to mislead the DM and that the specific word "down" was not the point of confusion.

There was a miscommunication, but the use of the word "down" wasn't it; I have spoken to the GM several times since making the original post and he uses "down" the same way I do and has told me the story from his PoV (as best as he can remember it); and it doesn't involve word games but perceived intent.


The whole problem in this thread is that the way you've presented the story seems pretty tailored to making you look like the poor guy who was just trying to heal himself as the rules clearly allow and your DM as some kind of kooky time tyrant bending reality on a whim to spite you specifically for having the gall to take a turn after his bad guy pasted you and was such a sore winner he didn't even bother properly finishing you off because he figured you knew you were outclassed.

That's certainly a reading.

Generally at my table we don't finish off wounded characters because its annoying to roll up new characters and its a bad tactical decision to ignore active threats to focus on downed ones. Especially in our party which is built around a necromancer; a dead PC is literally more dangerous than a living one. And I don't think we were ever "out-classed" or had a "sore-winner"; it was a fairly routine fight that he never had a hope of surviving.

Honestly, if anything my write-up presents the GM in a better light as it is written linearly when in reality he picked up the dice and started rolling damage as soon as I asked "is it my turn yet?".


The tyrant part though, that is the meat of it. Brian gets mad if you question him, as a PC, a DM, or away from the table entirely. By questioning his authority to declare a ret-con for any or no reason, I really pissed him off. Honestly, the rest of the story is pretty irrelevant and has done nothing but cause petty internet drama, and in hindsight the thread would have been much better if I left out the context entirely.



Based on what else you've said later in the thread, it sounds like the story the way it was initially told is inaccurate, whether intentionally or not, and that casts doubts on the accuracy of similar stories you've told elsewhere.

Yes. That is very clear.

I fully admit that I have translated indy-game jargon to D&D jargon when telling stories on this forum, both in this story and in past stories.

I don't think that has anything to do with honesty or the credibility of the stories at all, but apparently some people feel differently.

For the record, I have never made up or a story or changed a pertinent detail.

But its not like you can ever tell one way or the other with strangers on the internet, so w/e.

[Batcathat]

I fully admit that I have translated indy-game jargon to D&D jargon when telling stories on this forum, both in this story and in past stories.

I don't think that has anything to do with honesty or the credibility of the stories at all, but apparently some people feel differently.

I think it's mostly an issue of presentation. If you say "I was playing a [indy-game class], which is similar to [equivalent D&D class]", people mostly familiar with D&D might be helped by it while hopefully understanding it's not a perfect comparison, but if you say "I was a playing [D&D class]", people are going to take that at face value and assume that's exactly what you're playing.

[kyoryu]

I don't think that has anything to do with honesty or the credibility of the stories at all, but apparently some people feel differently.

I don't think that's an issue people have. I think that's your interpretation of the issue people have. I think the actual issue is closer to:


For the record, I have never made up or a story or changed a pertinent detail.

I think people are, mostly, questioning your ability to know what others might consider pertinent details. You're picking what details are pertinent to you, in good faith. However, I think you have fairly frequently left out details that others have found very pertinent once they've known them. This kinda gets back to the "seeing things from the view of others" thing I mentioned earlier.

I am 100% convinced there is no malice or deliberate deception occurring. And please take this as constructive information, rather than "Talakeal bad!"

[Talakeal]

You're picking what details are pertinent to you, in good faith. However, I think you have fairly frequently left out details that others have found very pertinent once they've known them. This kinda gets back to the "seeing things from the view of others" thing I mentioned earlier.

Absolutely true.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't think that has anything to do with honesty or the credibility of the stories at all, but apparently some people feel differently.

For the record, I have never made up or a story or changed a pertinent detail.


Honesty is not necessarily pertinent. What has been demonstrated is that we cannot trust that when you report to us a synopsis of what happened in your playgroup, that what you communicate to us is an accurate portrayal of what happened. That is not the same as saying you are lying (which only a few people suggested, but which you have fixated upon, as well as interpreted amongst those who did no say so, which we will get back to in a bit). For starters, you very clearly have changed a pertinent detail. The Original Post of this thread has been edited because the original version included points you now acknowledge were not accurate, and brought forth new facts which contradicted the earlier ones. Beyond that, you have made translations of the events to match game systems others have experience with in the belief that it would help with communication, but very apparently at least once hindered communication and situation comprehension. This is changing pertinent details in ways that altered peoples' understanding of the situation. That you disagree with the people saying that it has does not change that at the start of your next thread there will be people assuming what was written in the original post does not correlate 100% with the events as they happen because they went through your communicative-interpretive filter.

Beyond that, I don't think people will have complete faith in your interpretation of events, even if they are perfectly communicated. In a thread where you were looking for individual input on how people felt about GM authority regarding ret-cons, you came away with a stated takeaway (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25746779&postcount=128) and then synopsis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25747158&postcount=135) of others' positions that I think many reasonable people (example (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25747243&postcount=142)) would consider highly skewed to support your desired outcome. That, and your response to being pressed. As an example when someone stated (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25746724&postcount=120)they considered your translations to be an 'inaccurate description of events' and that we couldn't thus tell if the next described scenario was 'accurate or bowdlerized' (a reasonable, if debatable, position and a reasonable concern) you responded (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25746733&postcount=121) with a defense against an accusation of deliberate lying (a thing of which they did not accuse you and you clearly weren't doing, since you steadfastly are defending the translations as being synonymous with truth). These suggest to others that you may be good at hearing what you really want to hear, or what you really don't want to hear (which I guess overlaps with what one wants to hear, it reinforces/justifies a self-notion of being unjustly attacked/the victim). This adds 'is OP's understanding of events unbiased?' to the existing 'is what we are reading from this post an accurate communication of the events as OP understands them?'

So I guess, while I and most people in the thread* don't think it has anything to do with the honesty (by which I mean deliberate truthfulness, or lack thereof) of the stories, it does have a lot to do with the credibility. Simply put, there is an objective truth none of us can pretend to know, your interpretation of those events, and then your communication of those events to us. In each link in that chain, we have reason to be unsure of perfect signal fidelity, completely unrelated to any belief in you choosing to be dishonest.
*minus a couple of outliers, at least as far as public statements are concerned

Look, I have been neck deep in more than one of these threads where you don't know how things turned so South and you're somehow wearing the jerk sign or the clown shoes and man does it never feel fair. I will even go so far as to say that on forums like these there is something of a 'sharks smelling blood' effect and people disproportionately jump on board to see things go down, and perhaps that isn't optimal. However, I think about 90% of the backlash could have been avoided with a few acts of ownership. A very early 'I'm sorry, I miscommunicated,' a 'look, I thought I was being helpful by converting this into common parlance. Thank you for pointing out how it wasn't helpful for you,' responding to different definitions of "down" with 'I understand, in this situation, the GM and I...' instead of dragging out the dictionary or such-and-such a relative's non-pertinent sports definition. Perhaps even editing the OP with a big bold preamble saying "I solidly miscommunicated what happened in these events, here is a more accurate telling:', a more accurate telling, and then the original in strikethrough (so newcomers know what the early posts were in regards to). You've done some of the last part eventually, and kudos to you for doing so. This technique, applied earlier and more broadly, would have been very helpful for your endeavors.

[kyoryu]

I think the best tactic is to start threads more like:

"Hey, this thing happened. Here's how I see how it went down. This is my position. However, their position is X. That doesn't make sense to me - can you help me understand this?"

When you state their position, try to understand how a reasonable person, that doesn't know what you know, might have it. Even forget what you know entirely... given their statement in a vacuum, what might cause a reasonable person to hold that position? Don't edit their statement to what you think they "really" mean. Just repeat it.

And coming from a place of "can you help me understand?" allows for an explanation of what might be happening, and shows a willingness on your part to be open to explanations.

[Talakeal]

snip

I already admitted and apologized for telling the story wrong; as it turned out the nature of unconsciousness in my system was a huge deal and I should have elaborated upon it. And yeah, I did go back and put a disclaimer on the original post, but at this point the discussion is too tainted to actually salvage imo.




I think the best tactic is to start threads more like:

"Hey, this thing happened. Here's how I see how it went down. This is my position. However, their position is X. That doesn't make sense to me - can you help me understand this?"

When you state their position, try to understand how a reasonable person, that doesn't know what you know, might have it. Even forget what you know entirely... given their statement in a vacuum, what might cause a reasonable person to hold that position? Don't edit their statement to what you think they "really" mean. Just repeat it.

And coming from a place of "can you help me understand?" allows for an explanation of what might be happening, and shows a willingness on your part to be open to explanations.

Agreed.

Although, oddly enough, as it turned out I was making him out to be far too rational in my initial retelling.