I've seen and been a part of many post by both players and DM's asking for rule clarification and/or interpretation. Which is great! The forums here are a valuable resource for that.
What's bothering me is I'm seeing lots of posts that say something to the effect of "Well, if that's the way your DM is going to do it, then oh well" (I have said something similar to this in posts as a fallback too) I think it's time we call BS on this sentiment. An inexperienced or just bad DM making calls that are not following the rules, or not part of house rules that were made clear before the game, doesn't get a free pass just because they are the DM. There are many rules that are open to interpretation and obviously some DM's have house rules. There are also many rules that are very specific.
This game has rules that have been developed for over 45 years now. Just like any game, not following the rules breaks the game. What's worse is it breaks the players. If the players can't count on the rules being consistent then what's the point in taking an action? There's no confidence it will work if the rules are inconsistent.
I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. There's a lot of new folks learning to play and learning to DM and I think it's important to emphasize consistency. The DMG suggest talking about how rules should be dealt with before you start your first session. I think this is very important and can save a lot of stress as the game progresses. Is your game going to be a DM makes all the calls and regardless their word is law. Do you have house rules that everyone needs to know before starting the campaign. Can those rules be challenged by the players? If the DM makes a call that the players disagree with will a vote be taken?
So I encourage everyone to have a conversation about how rules are going to be handled in your session 0. It will save both players and DM's stress as the adventure runs and hopefully help to make a better gaming experience for all :)
What's bothering me is I'm seeing lots of posts that say something to the effect of "Well, if that's the way your DM is going to do it, then oh well" (I have said something similar to this in posts as a fallback too) I think it's time we call BS on this sentiment. An inexperienced or just bad DM making calls that are not following the rules, or not part of house rules that were made clear before the game, doesn't get a free pass just because they are the DM. There are many rules that are open to interpretation and obviously some DM's have house rules. There are also many rules that are very specific.
Every single rule is up to the DM's interpretation. Every. Single. One. Period. The DM can make up whatever rules he/she wants. Now, you don't have to play in the campaign if you don't like them, but if you agree to play in the campaign, you agree that the DM's word, NOT the DMG's or PBH's, is law. If the DM says, "There are no elves in my world," then that's it. There is no arguing that. If the DM says, "I don't allow players to take the Wish spell in my world, then that's it. If the DM says, "I don't use the nat 1/nat 20 crit success/failure rules in my world, a 1 is just a 1, and a 20 does not do extra damage," then that's it. If the DM says, "I don't allow magic in my world," as odd as that may be in a D&D game, then that's it. The DM's ruling is absolute and final. PERIOD.
This is not to say that the DM should be a jerk about it -- quite the opposite. I have DMed a lot but not 5e, and I have leaned on my experienced 5e players several times in the first 3 sessions already. For instance, the cleric dropped to 0 hp from an attack, and after combat was over (and he had failed his first death saving throw), the other players said is there anything we can do. I responded "If you had a healing kit you could try to stabilize him," and the cleric's player corrected me, reminding me that all it needs is a successful medicine check to stabilize. I didn't even look the rule up, I just trusted him, said, "OK, you can roll medicine," and he was stabilized. So I am not saying a DM should be capricious or arbitrary or deliberately ignore rules or refuse to admit he or she was wrong. But, if I had said, "Look in my world, you need a healer's kit to do that" then that would be it. You don't get to decide, as a player, how the DM's world works. (Though, again, I think a good DM takes input from the players, and I have done so multiple times already.)
This game has rules that have been developed for over 45 years now.
Although true, this is mostly irrelevant, since the vast majority of game mechanics are nothing like what they used to be. AC used to be better as it went down, not up. Mages could not cast in armor, period. Demi-human races were severely limited in terms of what levels of experience they could attain. Every class leveled at a different pace. Skill rolls for thieves were absolute d100, and there was no such thing as a DC. Advantage did not exist. In point of fact if you tried to take an old school D&D module and just use it as printed, it would be grossly underpowered in most circumstances for players of the recommended level, because every single class has seen a major power bump. Pretty much the only thing that's the same now vs. 45 years ago is the name "Dungeons and Dragons," and a few trademarked terms like "Armor Class" and" Hit Dice." And again, even those things don't mean the same thing that they meant years ago.
Just like any game, not following the rules breaks the game.
If you read these forums and others you will see that many people consider a bunch of different rules to be game-breaking themselves. Tons of subclasses, more than one race, and many spells are considered "broken" by large populations of players. So if the rules themselves are game-breaking, how could a DM modifying/deleting/replacing those rules create a campaign that is any more so?
What's worse is it breaks the players. If the players can't count on the rules being consistent then what's the point in taking an action? There's no confidence it will work if the rules are inconsistent.
First of all, sometimes the rules are already inconsistent. I trust that it doesn't break the players when those situations arise. Second of all, a world can break the RAW or RAI of the DMG or PHB and still be consistent. For example, my world does NOT use the "weave" nor any of that other claptrap in the PHB and DMG to explain how magic works. It works completely differently and every single word of text in the published books referring to the "weave" is effectively null and void in my campaign. (Instead, magic comes from opening a small tear in the boundaries between the mortal world and the inner or outer planes, and channeling in some of that raw energy, such as gating in a little morsel of material from the Plane of Fire to make a fireball.) I would argue that my formulation of magic is actually simpler, and far more consistent, than the mess that is the PHB/DMG/XGE/etc. interpretation of magic and the history of how magic works in the official canon.
In short, the official books are hardly the gatekeepers of consistency. As long as you don't spring rules de novo on players without them knowing about those rules, there is no problem with X'ing out whole sections or chapters of the published rules. And this is nothing new. Gygax himself always said, "Use what you want, toss what you don't -- it's your game, not mine." (That's a paraphrase, not a quote.)
I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. There's a lot of new folks learning to play and learning to DM and I think it's important to emphasize consistency.
Again, the rulebooks are not only not the gatekeepers of consistency but they can be highly inconsistent, especially from book to book.
The DMG suggest talking about how rules should be dealt with before you start your first session. I think this is very important and can save a lot of stress as the game progresses. Is your game going to be a DM makes all the calls and regardless their word is law. Do you have house rules that everyone needs to know before starting the campaign. Can those rules be challenged by the players? If the DM makes a call that the players disagree with will a vote be taken?
Yup, this is good advice. Communication is key. Talk about things ahead of time. As a DM, don't ever, EVER, change a rule "just because you feel like it." Always have a reason, and it had better be a GOOD reason. I had a reason to tie the magic of my world into the planes (which planes, by the way, are also custom, and not at all like the almighty mess that is, IMNHSO, the D&D multiverse). There is a whole overplot going on in my multiverse that has repercussions in the mortal lands, and the players will eventually see how this all ties together, and the magic rules are all part and parcel of that. So I had a good reason to get rid of the weave and all the mess surrounding it. Similarly, I banned certain PC races from the players. I did not do this to be mean, but again, it has to do with the worldbuilding. I had good reasons to do these things. Always have a good reason. Never be arbitrary. Always look for ways to say yes to players, and only say "no" when consistency of the world demands it.
See, again, consistency is good. But the rulebooks are not the gatekeepers of consistency.
As for "can rules be challenged by players?" I hope not. Players should NOT be "challenging" the DM. Asking why? Sure. Asking if there is some leeway for negotiation/compromise, absolutely. Challenging the DM? No. Don't do that. The DM is working very hard to give you a good game. Don't challenge him or her.
And finally in terms of players voting if they disagree with the DM? I would never do that. I have, more than once already, brought things before the group to discuss, but I insist that we reach a consensus, not a vote of the majority. We all must agree to do something. So for example, when we chose the campaign, I said, "This Roman thing only will work if everyone is happy with it." Everyone was, so we were good to go. But I would not have let 3 people vote "Rome" and we do that if the other 2 hated it. I also gave them some options of where they would start -- I suggested one town but said "Any town in this region is probably fine, and I could make work." Again, they decided by consensus. I proposed a rule I heard about elsewhere that all starting characters must begin the game knowing at least one other character, and they agreed they liked the idea. So we did it. Again, consensus is good. Voting, no. Especially, I would not allow players to vote to overrule the DM. In that case, I'd say, someone else DM then.
So I encourage everyone to have a conversation about how rules are going to be handled in your session 0. It will save both players and DM's stress as the adventure runs and hopefully help to make a better gaming experience for all :)
Yes, 100% this. Good advice. Discuss ahead of time. Policies stated in advance.
But it's perfectly fine for DMs to change the rules, and good DMs almost always do. If you watch the more famous ones like Colville and Mercer, both of them have a plethora of House Rules that are not part of the game, but it's how they and their table like to play. That's what the DM's job is -- to make the game fun for the table. Not every table has fun the same way, so the rules must be changed to suit the table.
Always remember, the rules are there to give you ideas and show you how you can do things, and should be used as the default unless there is a good reason not to. But once you come up with something you and your table like better, do it. The rules are the beginning of fun, not the end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying BioWizard, and thanks for a thoughtful reply. With you saying every rule is up to interpretation... I agree. In every example you give you also say something to the effect of "If I tell me players..." That's really the main point I'm trying to make. If you tell your players theirs no Wish and definitely no Deck of Many Things, that's all good. But if you don't say that and a character takes Wish and casts it, I don't think it's right to, at that point, say "Oh, No. There's no Wish in my campaign"
Yes I have several rules I've changed and play by and I tell the players before hand. I also let players know that I have been playing since basic and sometimes I may call a rule that I've been playing with forever, but haven't included on my house rule list. If a player is like "WTF man, that's not 5e" I'm completely open to a discussion about it. I feel like they can challenge me on it because I didn't include it in my house rules. That's my fault as a DM, not theirs as a player. What I do at that point is open it up to a conversation at the table and come to an agreement. There have been times that I have chucked the house rule in favor of the players because they obviously felt strongly about it and could site a 5e rule that applied. So I felt it was more important to have my players happy than to cling to a house rule that I failed to mention.
Thanks for expanding on, and further explaining some parts of my original post. It's valuable advice for players and DM's both!
Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.
I also want to make clear I'm not trying to attack anyone. I made this post in hopes of making gameplay smoother for both new players and new DM's. Most of the posts I've seen recently about players being frustrated, and being turned off to the game, are about inexperienced DM's making calls that don't follow rules that new players can point to in 5e. As a DM if your players aren't having fun you'll soon find yourself out of players to DM for. As a player, especially a new player, if the rules aren't clear you're going to get frustrated and it won't be fun to play.
So I guess the main point of my post was to ask fellow experienced players and Dm's to advocate that whatever the rules are you're going to play with they should be stated clearly in the beginning of the game. Responding to new players or DM posts with the sentiment "Well, it's the DM's call" without a better explanation could turn people off to the game.
Again we arent talking about house rules done before the game, we are specifically talking about a DM sprining a rules change on you in the middle of a game.
An inexperienced or just bad DM making calls that are not following the rules, or not part of house rules that were made clear before the game, doesn't get a free pass just because they are the DM.
He is talking about this.
Remains irrelevant; "Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world" covers that situation too, particularly if it's a situation that has never come up before. "I never noticed that rule before, and now that you've brought my attention to it, I'm going to ignore it" is still within the purview of the DM.
Now, this isn't to say that extensive house ruling can't be a problem, but it's really up to the players as well as the DM. If you come up with a trick that involves rules that have not previously come up significantly in the game, it's really best to discuss it with the DM before you try and use it. That (a) lets the DM react more sensibly to it happening, and (b) if he decides he's not going to allow it, you have enough warning that you can do something else, instead of getting your feet chopped out from under you.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying BioWizard, and thanks for a thoughtful reply. With you saying every rule is up to interpretation... I agree. In every example you give you also say something to the effect of "If I tell me players..." That's really the main point I'm trying to make. If you tell your players theirs no Wish and definitely no Deck of Many Things, that's all good. But if you don't say that and a character takes Wish and casts it, I don't think it's right to, at that point, say "Oh, No. There's no Wish in my campaign"
I think we can all agree (at least, I should hope we can!), that letting a player get to 17th level and pick the Wish spell, and THEN saying, when he goes to cast it, "Oh that spell doesn't exist in my game" would be a jerk move. You don't want to play with a DM like that. The DM should say, at some time before the point when the Wish spell could be chosen by a player character, "This spell cannot be cast by characters in this world, only from special objects like a genie in a bottle or a Ring of Wishes." This way the player doesn't start to plan for it, build around it, and expect it and find out even at the point of selection, "Oh you can't take that one." I would assume that no fair-minded DM would ever let a player take a spell and THEN tell him the spell is disallowed.
Now, what I can see being entirely reasonable is you let Fred take the spell for his PC... Fred uses it a couple of times to game-breaking effect (or near-game-breaking and forcing the DM to scramble like crazy to deal with it), and the DM takes Fred aside and says, "Look, I know you like this spell and had your heart set on it, but it is effing up the campaign like nobody's business, and I really need you to pick a different spell in place of Wish." That is, IMO, acceptable.
I know, on the other thread, some have argued that a good DM should be able to handle Wish, and that is true. But... at the start you addressed newbie DMs. To expect a new DM who has never even heard of the Wish spell before the day his first player took it for their character, to be able to adroitly handle all the mega-craziness of Wish, is a little much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”
D&D is always pushing the thought that it’s your game and the rules can be what you want them to. Something to this effect is even in the DMG. But I think they would prefer people to play by official rules they just say this to make the giant rule book seem less daunting so people aren’t scared away so easily. Then I feel this leads to a lot of DM using this as a scapegoat for being lazy and not learning the rules properly.
What about rule 0: The DM is always right. Kind of creates a paradox where even when he’s wrong, he’s right. Sometimes you you need to go with it, so long as he (or she, of course) is consistent in their application and everyone is having fun. What difference does it make if the misunderstand partial cover, or that you only get one reaction. I’m not going to tell people they’re having fun the wrong way.
And I think a focus too much on the rules is a step back. Third edition tried to codify everything, largely to do what the OP is hinting at, protecting players from bad DMs. Now I really enjoyed playing it at the time, but it was inscrutable for new players, and could lead to (at my table at least) long, rules lawyering discussions. I don’t think I’d really want to go back.
This edition’s focus on just having fun, and not worrying about the rules as much has really hit a sweet spot. And by making the game more accessible, it’s sales have been through the roof. Maybe that’s only correlative, but it’s a strong correlation. As long as people are having fun, who cares if they follow the rules or not?
To me, there's a give and a take here. Generally speaking, the DM is the one in power to make big decisions like that. But it's also up to the DM to actually take the player views into account when making those big decisions. If a situation arises where it's very clear, from the moment of the decision, that some or all the players are unhappy with it, it is the DM's responsibility to re-evaluate that decision. Was it made for the plot? Was it made to prevent one player from "shining too bright"? Was it made just to make things simpler? What happens if whatever rule or interaction is carried out a different way?
The underlying point here is that this game is about everyone having fun, not the players at the expense of the DM, not the DM at the expense of the players. Everyone.
The underlying point here is that this game is about everyone having fun, not the players at the expense of the DM, not the DM at the expense of the players. Everyone.
While true, this is at best marginally related to whether or not you follow the rules exactly.
The underlying point here is that this game is about everyone having fun, not the players at the expense of the DM, not the DM at the expense of the players. Everyone.
While true, this is at best marginally related to whether or not you follow the rules exactly.
It's intimately related, actually. If nobody's having fun because of the rules, or how they are enforced or not enforced, then what's the point? If the DM decides to enforce a rule one way, and some or all of the party interpret that same rule differently, that will generally diminish the fun for the party, because they aren't allowed to do whatever thing they thought they could do.
But it becomes a give-and-take, because there may be a story reason why a DM would want to enforce a rule 1 way in 1 scenario, but another way in a different scenario. This can upset players if they expect a rule to be enforced equally everywhere. This kind of conversation becomes a Jenga pile of "well it depends...". And DMs need to have that kind of mindset or the game breaks down and becomes a series of chores. That's a trap a lot of DMs fall into, I think, of simply writing off the views of the player in rules grey areas.
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”
I agree 100%
I know Wish was an extreme example but here's a practical one. There's a recent Arcana vs. Identify thread. Short summary... A player wanted to play a Knowledge Domain Cleric and built a whole backstory about his character much of which revolved around Identifying magic items and being the party member with the Magic knowledge, so to say. After already playing the party finally finds a magic item and the DM lets a different player roll an Arcana check to identify the item. The Cleric says "Hey what's up. That's not how arcana works, plus I have identify and it's kind of my whole thing" The DM tells the cleric, sorry, but that's how I do it. Identify is basically useless in my campaign. Even after a discussion with the DM he keeps the ruling that Arcana can be used to identify magic and tells the cleric you should change your domain. To me this is just absurd on so many levels but a very real example of a player being totally frustrated and now turned off to even playing in the campaign because of people thinking "The DM is always right" AT best it's sloppy but personally I think it's just shite DM'ing. In any case. There are still a few people in that thread saying "Sorry, that sucks but if the DM is going to do it that way I guess you'll have to change domains."
So for those in this thread, that's a real example of how the attitude of the DM's always right playing out. Doesn't sound like fun to me to have to re-build a character after game play has already started because the DM didn't know the rules and decided to enforce a house rule after game play started.
Reading through all the comments I wonder if some of it just has to do with DM style. I'm a "make my players hero's" kind of DM. I've played in games that have been "DM vs. Player" Some of those have been fun but most of them are aggravating, stressful and lead to people walking away from the table with hard feelings. If you are a "DM vs. Players" kind of person than I can see that you would want "The DM is always right" rule strongly enforced.
There's more in the posts that I want to respond to but I feel like this post is getting long. Thank you to everyone for sharing your views!
A player wanted to play a Knowledge Domain Cleric and built a whole backstory about his character much of which revolved around Identifying magic items and being the party member with the Magic knowledge, so to say. After already playing the party finally finds a magic item and the DM lets a different player roll an Arcana check to identify the item. The Cleric says "Hey what's up. That's not how arcana works, plus I have identify and it's kind of my whole thing" The DM tells the cleric, sorry, but that's how I do it. Identify is basically useless in my campaign. Even after a discussion with the DM he keeps the ruling that Arcana can be used to identify magic and tells the cleric you should change your domain.
The DM is a jerk. I would use stronger words but they'd get turned into **** by the forum....
I'm not sure what kind of a person would allow a player to make this kind of backstory and put it into gameplay and then say later, after the character is already in-game and being played as stated in the backstory, sorry no, your backstory is moot. Your whole character is obsolete. And worse, pick a different domain. I mean why didn't the DM tell the player that in the first place? BEFORE character creation.
To me this is just absurd on so many levels but a very real example of a player being totally frustrated and now turned off to even playing in the campaign because of people thinking "The DM is always right" AT best it's sloppy but personally I think it's just shite DM'ing. In any case. There are still a few people in that thread saying "Sorry, that sucks but if the DM is going to do it that way I guess you'll have to change domains."
There is a lot to unpack here in such a short paragraph. First of all, I agree 100% that it is absurd for the DM to do what you described. I would not play with that DM. Clearly the DM is not fair-minded and reasonable.
As to "the DM is always right." I don't think I've said that. DMs can be wrong just like anyone else. It's not that the DM is always correct, but that the DM is the final authority on gameplay, and so the DM's word is law, and supersedes the rulebook when the two are not in agreement. If the DM rules "there is no knowledge domain in my world," then that's it. It doesn't make the DM "right," but the ruling is what it is. Is that a good ruling? IMO, no. But the DM cannot be overruled by anyone else, not even Gary Gygax.
In terms of people saying, "Well it sucks but if that's his rule then you have to change domains." That is strictly true. The DM cannot be forced by anyone to allow anything into his game. If the DM says "no knowledge domain in this world," then you have 2 choices: 1. quit the campaign, 2. change domains. If it's me, I'm quitting that campaign, because I don't want to game with the sort of person who would let me get all excited about a character concept and then stomp on it in the middle of gameplay. That is not good DMing -- it's bad DMing. That DM is wrong (so much for "the DM is always right!"), not about what to allow in his world, but about how the player was treated.
A good DM should empower his players to realize their character concept. Yes, you want the concept to fit into your world. You work ahead of time, before session 1, to make that happen. Then once gameplay begins, you help the player get more out of the concept. I try to find ways to bring the characters' concept into the game. Not step on it. I've been purposely modifying my plans for some things going on in the world to add in stuff from the character backgrounds... this is how to DM a game group, not negating the someone's whole character concept.
So for those in this thread, that's a real example of how the attitude of the DM's always right playing out. Doesn't sound like fun to me to have to re-build a character after game play has already started because the DM didn't know the rules and decided to enforce a house rule after game play started.
I agree, it's not fun. The DM was wrong. There I said it. The DM is not always right.
But, this DM also cannot be overruled by anyone, so if he won't budge, the player's gonna have to either come up with a new concept or leave the campaign. I already said which one I would do.
Reading through all the comments I wonder if some of it just has to do with DM style. I'm a "make my players hero's" kind of DM. I've played in games that have been "DM vs. Player" Some of those have been fun but most of them are aggravating, stressful and lead to people walking away from the table with hard feelings. If you are a "DM vs. Players" kind of person than I can see that you would want "The DM is always right" rule strongly enforced.
A good DM does not compete against the players but empowers the players to enjoy their characters as fully as possible. I've been in DM-vs-Player situations a few times too, mostly when my friends and I were young and inexperienced. You're right, it's not fun.
But again, the DM's word is law. But that does not make the DM always right. A good DM will realize that he made a bad call and work to correct it, not insist that he's always right.
Yup, I'm with you. I'd likely leave that campaign. I also agree that the DM has the final call. Regardless of what it is and if players or written rules agree or not.
In retrospect I probably should have titled the post something like "DM's make your rules clear. It will save everyone headaches" But when I made the post I was getting frustrated with the laissez-faire attitude of the DM always being right, without understanding or considering the impact it can have on (especially) new players and DM's alike.
The reason you've seen some of the flippant "the DM is in charge" response is that a few times in the last couple of weeks, players have come on here to try and get the folks on the forum to side with them and tell them that "their DM was wrong" in some sort of a ruling. We are not going to overrule someone else's DM. (At least, the vast majority of us aren't.) I mean, literally we can't... the DM doesn't have to (and probably shouldn't) listen to us. But also, most of us wouldn't even if we somehow could, because it is bad practice to appeal to some "higher authority" than the DM over a ruling.
So for me.. when I see a player coming on here to ask us to overrule the DM, then yes, my knee-jerk and perhaps flippant response is, "Your DM's word is law." Because players should not be coming on here to get us to side with them against their DM. It's like when a kid tries to pit mom against dad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I've seen and been a part of many post by both players and DM's asking for rule clarification and/or interpretation. Which is great! The forums here are a valuable resource for that.
What's bothering me is I'm seeing lots of posts that say something to the effect of "Well, if that's the way your DM is going to do it, then oh well" (I have said something similar to this in posts as a fallback too) I think it's time we call BS on this sentiment.
I have definitely seen an increase in the "GM is always right" posts over the past 5 or 6 months. I am not saying I disagree with that statement, but it's definitely getting thrown around at a higher degree than it used to in the forums. It bothers me the most in the Rules & Mechanics forums. People come on to ask a question, most likely driven by a game they are in, and instead of getting a RAW (or even RAI) answer, they get shut down and are borderline scolded for having the audacity to ask a question when they should just talk to their DM. Or if not that, I'll see a question, then the question is accurately answered by post two or three, and then there are 20+ follow up posts about how the GM can do whatever they want/take it or leave the game/etc. To your point, it can be off-putting to new players.
The underlying point here is that this game is about everyone having fun, not the players at the expense of the DM, not the DM at the expense of the players. Everyone.
While true, this is at best marginally related to whether or not you follow the rules exactly.
It's intimately related, actually. If nobody's having fun because of the rules, or how they are enforced or not enforced, then what's the point?
That's why I said marginally related instead of totally unrelated. Both strict and loose rules interpretation can contribute to a game being fun or unfun.
A player wanted to play a Knowledge Domain Cleric and built a whole backstory about his character much of which revolved around Identifying magic items and being the party member with the Magic knowledge, so to say. After already playing the party finally finds a magic item and the DM lets a different player roll an Arcana check to identify the item. The Cleric says "Hey what's up. That's not how arcana works, plus I have identify and it's kind of my whole thing" The DM tells the cleric, sorry, but that's how I do it. Identify is basically useless in my campaign. Even after a discussion with the DM he keeps the ruling that Arcana can be used to identify magic and tells the cleric you should change your domain.
The DM is a jerk. I would use stronger words but they'd get turned into **** by the forum....
The DM might just be careless or sloppy, not that those are good features either. The DM should know the character's backstories and concept, and should have told the player when the concept was first introduced that it wouldn't actually work (this assumes the player actually informed the DM of his concept; if he didn't, that's his error).
Rule breaking ultimately comes down to how your group likes to play.
D&D is a game that attracts a wide variety of players, and each may have a different expectation from the game. Depending on those expectations, the approach towards rules can also vary.
I myself am very 'gamist', that means I prefer to play as RAW (Rules As Written), as possible. The next priority is RAI (Rules As Intended), followed by making up rules that are as analogous to existing ones as possible, if a situation is unspecified and does not have a rule attached. As a DM, I also like to roll my dice out in the open, so that everyone can see what the monsters rolled.
However, I have played in groups that were of a different mind. There is the storyteller group, where the story is the highest priority. If an action would further the story, the rules take a step back. So if it sounds great to do that stunt, that by RAW would not be possible, but is cool, fits into the character's portrayal, and would drive the story forward, they would allow it.
There are gradients between those two, and probably a bunch of varieties that I don't even know about.
The core rules of the game are "have fun" and "don't be a jerk", anything else is something you need to clear with the group you are playing with.
If you get upset about something happening with the rules, be it them played too strict or too lenient, you should probably address it with the group (not during combat, though ;)
And if you find out that there is no consensus or compromise you can reach, you may want to look for a different group.
"The core rules of the game are "have fun" and "don't be a jerk""
Haha! I like that!
"To me, a bad DM, should be called out by his players as being a bad DM."
I also agree with this but how it's handled can be tricky. Speaking to BioWIzards point. Coming at the DM with "Hey look. These 20 people online agree with me" may not be the best way to go about it. So I get that. Just like most other things a good conversation is probably the place to starts :) It's also tough being a DM. Being a good/great DM is very difficult. Aside from all the rules (which we know there are a shit ton) you have to be a story teller, a character actor, at times a mathematician, an encyclopedia, an arbitrator, a hero, a villain... I don't think I need to go on. So I can understand a DM being offended, by being challenged, after putting in all this work to run a game. Personally, that's not me. I don't mind and I don't get offended. I have had many times where I was disappointed because I put a lot of work into something that I thought was going to be awesome and the players figured out a way (intentionally or not) to blow right past it. lol. But hey, that can be part of the fun too! (sorry drifted off topic there a bit)
"I have definitely seen an increase in the "GM is always right" posts over the past 5 or 6 months. I am not saying I disagree with that statement, but it's definitely getting thrown around at a higher degree than it used to in the forums."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed :) And the continuation of posting after a question is answered is kinda crazy! Especially when even the OP posts saying "Thanks! That answers my question" and then people keep posting and posting. Haha! It's kind of funny. I think sometimes people don't bother reading the thread and just just answer regardless of what's been posted before. Assuming innocent intent here. (Sorry, kind of going off topic here too but it is somewhat related. Especially like you mentioned when the question is answered or rule clarified and then a bunch of posts past that point say "Deal with it. The DM is always right)
"And if you find out that there is no consensus or compromise you can reach, you may want to look for a different group"
Ultimately this is what it comes down to. If you're not meshing with a group over rules, and/or how they are handled, or discussed then that's really the final option. Like I had said earlier, part of this post is really to set the intention of lets work together to keep new players and DM's on track so this doesn't happen. Having to leave a game over rule discrepancies sucks. Well, having to leave for any reason sucks. Especially now when there's a shortage of DM's and SO SO many new players!
I think there's a lot of good take-aways from this thread. I think the most important, and seems to be agreed upon by most everyone, is...
Have a discussion in session 0 about how rule discrepancies are going to be handled! If you want to run your game that some rules may take a back seat to further the story, great! If you put out there that this is a strict RAW game, all good! At least that way everyone knows what they are getting into and hopefully will avoid conflicts down the road :)
***This PSA brought to you by the fine folks on the forums at DND Beyond :)
I've seen and been a part of many post by both players and DM's asking for rule clarification and/or interpretation. Which is great! The forums here are a valuable resource for that.
What's bothering me is I'm seeing lots of posts that say something to the effect of "Well, if that's the way your DM is going to do it, then oh well" (I have said something similar to this in posts as a fallback too) I think it's time we call BS on this sentiment. An inexperienced or just bad DM making calls that are not following the rules, or not part of house rules that were made clear before the game, doesn't get a free pass just because they are the DM. There are many rules that are open to interpretation and obviously some DM's have house rules. There are also many rules that are very specific.
This game has rules that have been developed for over 45 years now. Just like any game, not following the rules breaks the game. What's worse is it breaks the players. If the players can't count on the rules being consistent then what's the point in taking an action? There's no confidence it will work if the rules are inconsistent.
I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. There's a lot of new folks learning to play and learning to DM and I think it's important to emphasize consistency. The DMG suggest talking about how rules should be dealt with before you start your first session. I think this is very important and can save a lot of stress as the game progresses. Is your game going to be a DM makes all the calls and regardless their word is law. Do you have house rules that everyone needs to know before starting the campaign. Can those rules be challenged by the players? If the DM makes a call that the players disagree with will a vote be taken?
So I encourage everyone to have a conversation about how rules are going to be handled in your session 0. It will save both players and DM's stress as the adventure runs and hopefully help to make a better gaming experience for all :)
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Every single rule is up to the DM's interpretation. Every. Single. One. Period. The DM can make up whatever rules he/she wants. Now, you don't have to play in the campaign if you don't like them, but if you agree to play in the campaign, you agree that the DM's word, NOT the DMG's or PBH's, is law. If the DM says, "There are no elves in my world," then that's it. There is no arguing that. If the DM says, "I don't allow players to take the Wish spell in my world, then that's it. If the DM says, "I don't use the nat 1/nat 20 crit success/failure rules in my world, a 1 is just a 1, and a 20 does not do extra damage," then that's it. If the DM says, "I don't allow magic in my world," as odd as that may be in a D&D game, then that's it. The DM's ruling is absolute and final. PERIOD.
This is not to say that the DM should be a jerk about it -- quite the opposite. I have DMed a lot but not 5e, and I have leaned on my experienced 5e players several times in the first 3 sessions already. For instance, the cleric dropped to 0 hp from an attack, and after combat was over (and he had failed his first death saving throw), the other players said is there anything we can do. I responded "If you had a healing kit you could try to stabilize him," and the cleric's player corrected me, reminding me that all it needs is a successful medicine check to stabilize. I didn't even look the rule up, I just trusted him, said, "OK, you can roll medicine," and he was stabilized. So I am not saying a DM should be capricious or arbitrary or deliberately ignore rules or refuse to admit he or she was wrong. But, if I had said, "Look in my world, you need a healer's kit to do that" then that would be it. You don't get to decide, as a player, how the DM's world works. (Though, again, I think a good DM takes input from the players, and I have done so multiple times already.)
Although true, this is mostly irrelevant, since the vast majority of game mechanics are nothing like what they used to be. AC used to be better as it went down, not up. Mages could not cast in armor, period. Demi-human races were severely limited in terms of what levels of experience they could attain. Every class leveled at a different pace. Skill rolls for thieves were absolute d100, and there was no such thing as a DC. Advantage did not exist. In point of fact if you tried to take an old school D&D module and just use it as printed, it would be grossly underpowered in most circumstances for players of the recommended level, because every single class has seen a major power bump. Pretty much the only thing that's the same now vs. 45 years ago is the name "Dungeons and Dragons," and a few trademarked terms like "Armor Class" and" Hit Dice." And again, even those things don't mean the same thing that they meant years ago.
If you read these forums and others you will see that many people consider a bunch of different rules to be game-breaking themselves. Tons of subclasses, more than one race, and many spells are considered "broken" by large populations of players. So if the rules themselves are game-breaking, how could a DM modifying/deleting/replacing those rules create a campaign that is any more so?
First of all, sometimes the rules are already inconsistent. I trust that it doesn't break the players when those situations arise. Second of all, a world can break the RAW or RAI of the DMG or PHB and still be consistent. For example, my world does NOT use the "weave" nor any of that other claptrap in the PHB and DMG to explain how magic works. It works completely differently and every single word of text in the published books referring to the "weave" is effectively null and void in my campaign. (Instead, magic comes from opening a small tear in the boundaries between the mortal world and the inner or outer planes, and channeling in some of that raw energy, such as gating in a little morsel of material from the Plane of Fire to make a fireball.) I would argue that my formulation of magic is actually simpler, and far more consistent, than the mess that is the PHB/DMG/XGE/etc. interpretation of magic and the history of how magic works in the official canon.
In short, the official books are hardly the gatekeepers of consistency. As long as you don't spring rules de novo on players without them knowing about those rules, there is no problem with X'ing out whole sections or chapters of the published rules. And this is nothing new. Gygax himself always said, "Use what you want, toss what you don't -- it's your game, not mine." (That's a paraphrase, not a quote.)
Again, the rulebooks are not only not the gatekeepers of consistency but they can be highly inconsistent, especially from book to book.
Yup, this is good advice. Communication is key. Talk about things ahead of time. As a DM, don't ever, EVER, change a rule "just because you feel like it." Always have a reason, and it had better be a GOOD reason. I had a reason to tie the magic of my world into the planes (which planes, by the way, are also custom, and not at all like the almighty mess that is, IMNHSO, the D&D multiverse). There is a whole overplot going on in my multiverse that has repercussions in the mortal lands, and the players will eventually see how this all ties together, and the magic rules are all part and parcel of that. So I had a good reason to get rid of the weave and all the mess surrounding it. Similarly, I banned certain PC races from the players. I did not do this to be mean, but again, it has to do with the worldbuilding. I had good reasons to do these things. Always have a good reason. Never be arbitrary. Always look for ways to say yes to players, and only say "no" when consistency of the world demands it.
See, again, consistency is good. But the rulebooks are not the gatekeepers of consistency.
As for "can rules be challenged by players?" I hope not. Players should NOT be "challenging" the DM. Asking why? Sure. Asking if there is some leeway for negotiation/compromise, absolutely. Challenging the DM? No. Don't do that. The DM is working very hard to give you a good game. Don't challenge him or her.
And finally in terms of players voting if they disagree with the DM? I would never do that. I have, more than once already, brought things before the group to discuss, but I insist that we reach a consensus, not a vote of the majority. We all must agree to do something. So for example, when we chose the campaign, I said, "This Roman thing only will work if everyone is happy with it." Everyone was, so we were good to go. But I would not have let 3 people vote "Rome" and we do that if the other 2 hated it. I also gave them some options of where they would start -- I suggested one town but said "Any town in this region is probably fine, and I could make work." Again, they decided by consensus. I proposed a rule I heard about elsewhere that all starting characters must begin the game knowing at least one other character, and they agreed they liked the idea. So we did it. Again, consensus is good. Voting, no. Especially, I would not allow players to vote to overrule the DM. In that case, I'd say, someone else DM then.
Yes, 100% this. Good advice. Discuss ahead of time. Policies stated in advance.
But it's perfectly fine for DMs to change the rules, and good DMs almost always do. If you watch the more famous ones like Colville and Mercer, both of them have a plethora of House Rules that are not part of the game, but it's how they and their table like to play. That's what the DM's job is -- to make the game fun for the table. Not every table has fun the same way, so the rules must be changed to suit the table.
Always remember, the rules are there to give you ideas and show you how you can do things, and should be used as the default unless there is a good reason not to. But once you come up with something you and your table like better, do it. The rules are the beginning of fun, not the end.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying BioWizard, and thanks for a thoughtful reply. With you saying every rule is up to interpretation... I agree. In every example you give you also say something to the effect of "If I tell me players..." That's really the main point I'm trying to make. If you tell your players theirs no Wish and definitely no Deck of Many Things, that's all good. But if you don't say that and a character takes Wish and casts it, I don't think it's right to, at that point, say "Oh, No. There's no Wish in my campaign"
Yes I have several rules I've changed and play by and I tell the players before hand. I also let players know that I have been playing since basic and sometimes I may call a rule that I've been playing with forever, but haven't included on my house rule list. If a player is like "WTF man, that's not 5e" I'm completely open to a discussion about it. I feel like they can challenge me on it because I didn't include it in my house rules. That's my fault as a DM, not theirs as a player. What I do at that point is open it up to a conversation at the table and come to an agreement. There have been times that I have chucked the house rule in favor of the players because they obviously felt strongly about it and could site a 5e rule that applied. So I felt it was more important to have my players happy than to cling to a house rule that I failed to mention.
Thanks for expanding on, and further explaining some parts of my original post. It's valuable advice for players and DM's both!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Introduction to basic rules:
I think the rules disagree with you...
Exactly BigLizrd.
I also want to make clear I'm not trying to attack anyone. I made this post in hopes of making gameplay smoother for both new players and new DM's. Most of the posts I've seen recently about players being frustrated, and being turned off to the game, are about inexperienced DM's making calls that don't follow rules that new players can point to in 5e. As a DM if your players aren't having fun you'll soon find yourself out of players to DM for. As a player, especially a new player, if the rules aren't clear you're going to get frustrated and it won't be fun to play.
So I guess the main point of my post was to ask fellow experienced players and Dm's to advocate that whatever the rules are you're going to play with they should be stated clearly in the beginning of the game. Responding to new players or DM posts with the sentiment "Well, it's the DM's call" without a better explanation could turn people off to the game.
And personally... I WANT EVERYONE PLAYING D&D :)
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Remains irrelevant; "Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world" covers that situation too, particularly if it's a situation that has never come up before. "I never noticed that rule before, and now that you've brought my attention to it, I'm going to ignore it" is still within the purview of the DM.
Now, this isn't to say that extensive house ruling can't be a problem, but it's really up to the players as well as the DM. If you come up with a trick that involves rules that have not previously come up significantly in the game, it's really best to discuss it with the DM before you try and use it. That (a) lets the DM react more sensibly to it happening, and (b) if he decides he's not going to allow it, you have enough warning that you can do something else, instead of getting your feet chopped out from under you.
I think we can all agree (at least, I should hope we can!), that letting a player get to 17th level and pick the Wish spell, and THEN saying, when he goes to cast it, "Oh that spell doesn't exist in my game" would be a jerk move. You don't want to play with a DM like that. The DM should say, at some time before the point when the Wish spell could be chosen by a player character, "This spell cannot be cast by characters in this world, only from special objects like a genie in a bottle or a Ring of Wishes." This way the player doesn't start to plan for it, build around it, and expect it and find out even at the point of selection, "Oh you can't take that one." I would assume that no fair-minded DM would ever let a player take a spell and THEN tell him the spell is disallowed.
Now, what I can see being entirely reasonable is you let Fred take the spell for his PC... Fred uses it a couple of times to game-breaking effect (or near-game-breaking and forcing the DM to scramble like crazy to deal with it), and the DM takes Fred aside and says, "Look, I know you like this spell and had your heart set on it, but it is effing up the campaign like nobody's business, and I really need you to pick a different spell in place of Wish." That is, IMO, acceptable.
I know, on the other thread, some have argued that a good DM should be able to handle Wish, and that is true. But... at the start you addressed newbie DMs. To expect a new DM who has never even heard of the Wish spell before the day his first player took it for their character, to be able to adroitly handle all the mega-craziness of Wish, is a little much.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”
D&D is always pushing the thought that it’s your game and the rules can be what you want them to. Something to this effect is even in the DMG. But I think they would prefer people to play by official rules they just say this to make the giant rule book seem less daunting so people aren’t scared away so easily. Then I feel this leads to a lot of DM using this as a scapegoat for being lazy and not learning the rules properly.
What about rule 0: The DM is always right. Kind of creates a paradox where even when he’s wrong, he’s right. Sometimes you you need to go with it, so long as he (or she, of course) is consistent in their application and everyone is having fun. What difference does it make if the misunderstand partial cover, or that you only get one reaction. I’m not going to tell people they’re having fun the wrong way.
And I think a focus too much on the rules is a step back. Third edition tried to codify everything, largely to do what the OP is hinting at, protecting players from bad DMs. Now I really enjoyed playing it at the time, but it was inscrutable for new players, and could lead to (at my table at least) long, rules lawyering discussions. I don’t think I’d really want to go back.
This edition’s focus on just having fun, and not worrying about the rules as much has really hit a sweet spot. And by making the game more accessible, it’s sales have been through the roof. Maybe that’s only correlative, but it’s a strong correlation.
As long as people are having fun, who cares if they follow the rules or not?
To me, there's a give and a take here. Generally speaking, the DM is the one in power to make big decisions like that. But it's also up to the DM to actually take the player views into account when making those big decisions. If a situation arises where it's very clear, from the moment of the decision, that some or all the players are unhappy with it, it is the DM's responsibility to re-evaluate that decision. Was it made for the plot? Was it made to prevent one player from "shining too bright"? Was it made just to make things simpler? What happens if whatever rule or interaction is carried out a different way?
The underlying point here is that this game is about everyone having fun, not the players at the expense of the DM, not the DM at the expense of the players. Everyone.
While true, this is at best marginally related to whether or not you follow the rules exactly.
It's intimately related, actually. If nobody's having fun because of the rules, or how they are enforced or not enforced, then what's the point? If the DM decides to enforce a rule one way, and some or all of the party interpret that same rule differently, that will generally diminish the fun for the party, because they aren't allowed to do whatever thing they thought they could do.
But it becomes a give-and-take, because there may be a story reason why a DM would want to enforce a rule 1 way in 1 scenario, but another way in a different scenario. This can upset players if they expect a rule to be enforced equally everywhere. This kind of conversation becomes a Jenga pile of "well it depends...". And DMs need to have that kind of mindset or the game breaks down and becomes a series of chores. That's a trap a lot of DMs fall into, I think, of simply writing off the views of the player in rules grey areas.
I agree 100%
I know Wish was an extreme example but here's a practical one. There's a recent Arcana vs. Identify thread. Short summary... A player wanted to play a Knowledge Domain Cleric and built a whole backstory about his character much of which revolved around Identifying magic items and being the party member with the Magic knowledge, so to say. After already playing the party finally finds a magic item and the DM lets a different player roll an Arcana check to identify the item. The Cleric says "Hey what's up. That's not how arcana works, plus I have identify and it's kind of my whole thing" The DM tells the cleric, sorry, but that's how I do it. Identify is basically useless in my campaign. Even after a discussion with the DM he keeps the ruling that Arcana can be used to identify magic and tells the cleric you should change your domain. To me this is just absurd on so many levels but a very real example of a player being totally frustrated and now turned off to even playing in the campaign because of people thinking "The DM is always right" AT best it's sloppy but personally I think it's just shite DM'ing. In any case. There are still a few people in that thread saying "Sorry, that sucks but if the DM is going to do it that way I guess you'll have to change domains."
So for those in this thread, that's a real example of how the attitude of the DM's always right playing out. Doesn't sound like fun to me to have to re-build a character after game play has already started because the DM didn't know the rules and decided to enforce a house rule after game play started.
Reading through all the comments I wonder if some of it just has to do with DM style. I'm a "make my players hero's" kind of DM. I've played in games that have been "DM vs. Player" Some of those have been fun but most of them are aggravating, stressful and lead to people walking away from the table with hard feelings. If you are a "DM vs. Players" kind of person than I can see that you would want "The DM is always right" rule strongly enforced.
There's more in the posts that I want to respond to but I feel like this post is getting long. Thank you to everyone for sharing your views!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
The DM is a jerk. I would use stronger words but they'd get turned into **** by the forum....
I'm not sure what kind of a person would allow a player to make this kind of backstory and put it into gameplay and then say later, after the character is already in-game and being played as stated in the backstory, sorry no, your backstory is moot. Your whole character is obsolete. And worse, pick a different domain. I mean why didn't the DM tell the player that in the first place? BEFORE character creation.
There is a lot to unpack here in such a short paragraph. First of all, I agree 100% that it is absurd for the DM to do what you described. I would not play with that DM. Clearly the DM is not fair-minded and reasonable.
As to "the DM is always right." I don't think I've said that. DMs can be wrong just like anyone else. It's not that the DM is always correct, but that the DM is the final authority on gameplay, and so the DM's word is law, and supersedes the rulebook when the two are not in agreement. If the DM rules "there is no knowledge domain in my world," then that's it. It doesn't make the DM "right," but the ruling is what it is. Is that a good ruling? IMO, no. But the DM cannot be overruled by anyone else, not even Gary Gygax.
In terms of people saying, "Well it sucks but if that's his rule then you have to change domains." That is strictly true. The DM cannot be forced by anyone to allow anything into his game. If the DM says "no knowledge domain in this world," then you have 2 choices: 1. quit the campaign, 2. change domains. If it's me, I'm quitting that campaign, because I don't want to game with the sort of person who would let me get all excited about a character concept and then stomp on it in the middle of gameplay. That is not good DMing -- it's bad DMing. That DM is wrong (so much for "the DM is always right!"), not about what to allow in his world, but about how the player was treated.
A good DM should empower his players to realize their character concept. Yes, you want the concept to fit into your world. You work ahead of time, before session 1, to make that happen. Then once gameplay begins, you help the player get more out of the concept. I try to find ways to bring the characters' concept into the game. Not step on it. I've been purposely modifying my plans for some things going on in the world to add in stuff from the character backgrounds... this is how to DM a game group, not negating the someone's whole character concept.
I agree, it's not fun. The DM was wrong. There I said it. The DM is not always right.
But, this DM also cannot be overruled by anyone, so if he won't budge, the player's gonna have to either come up with a new concept or leave the campaign. I already said which one I would do.
A good DM does not compete against the players but empowers the players to enjoy their characters as fully as possible. I've been in DM-vs-Player situations a few times too, mostly when my friends and I were young and inexperienced. You're right, it's not fun.
But again, the DM's word is law. But that does not make the DM always right. A good DM will realize that he made a bad call and work to correct it, not insist that he's always right.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yup, I'm with you. I'd likely leave that campaign. I also agree that the DM has the final call. Regardless of what it is and if players or written rules agree or not.
In retrospect I probably should have titled the post something like "DM's make your rules clear. It will save everyone headaches" But when I made the post I was getting frustrated with the laissez-faire attitude of the DM always being right, without understanding or considering the impact it can have on (especially) new players and DM's alike.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
The reason you've seen some of the flippant "the DM is in charge" response is that a few times in the last couple of weeks, players have come on here to try and get the folks on the forum to side with them and tell them that "their DM was wrong" in some sort of a ruling. We are not going to overrule someone else's DM. (At least, the vast majority of us aren't.) I mean, literally we can't... the DM doesn't have to (and probably shouldn't) listen to us. But also, most of us wouldn't even if we somehow could, because it is bad practice to appeal to some "higher authority" than the DM over a ruling.
So for me.. when I see a player coming on here to ask us to overrule the DM, then yes, my knee-jerk and perhaps flippant response is, "Your DM's word is law." Because players should not be coming on here to get us to side with them against their DM. It's like when a kid tries to pit mom against dad.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have definitely seen an increase in the "GM is always right" posts over the past 5 or 6 months. I am not saying I disagree with that statement, but it's definitely getting thrown around at a higher degree than it used to in the forums. It bothers me the most in the Rules & Mechanics forums. People come on to ask a question, most likely driven by a game they are in, and instead of getting a RAW (or even RAI) answer, they get shut down and are borderline scolded for having the audacity to ask a question when they should just talk to their DM. Or if not that, I'll see a question, then the question is accurately answered by post two or three, and then there are 20+ follow up posts about how the GM can do whatever they want/take it or leave the game/etc. To your point, it can be off-putting to new players.
That's why I said marginally related instead of totally unrelated. Both strict and loose rules interpretation can contribute to a game being fun or unfun.
The DM might just be careless or sloppy, not that those are good features either. The DM should know the character's backstories and concept, and should have told the player when the concept was first introduced that it wouldn't actually work (this assumes the player actually informed the DM of his concept; if he didn't, that's his error).
Rule breaking ultimately comes down to how your group likes to play.
D&D is a game that attracts a wide variety of players, and each may have a different expectation from the game. Depending on those expectations, the approach towards rules can also vary.
I myself am very 'gamist', that means I prefer to play as RAW (Rules As Written), as possible. The next priority is RAI (Rules As Intended), followed by making up rules that are as analogous to existing ones as possible, if a situation is unspecified and does not have a rule attached. As a DM, I also like to roll my dice out in the open, so that everyone can see what the monsters rolled.
However, I have played in groups that were of a different mind. There is the storyteller group, where the story is the highest priority. If an action would further the story, the rules take a step back. So if it sounds great to do that stunt, that by RAW would not be possible, but is cool, fits into the character's portrayal, and would drive the story forward, they would allow it.
There are gradients between those two, and probably a bunch of varieties that I don't even know about.
The core rules of the game are "have fun" and "don't be a jerk", anything else is something you need to clear with the group you are playing with.
If you get upset about something happening with the rules, be it them played too strict or too lenient, you should probably address it with the group (not during combat, though ;)
And if you find out that there is no consensus or compromise you can reach, you may want to look for a different group.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Haha! I like that!
"To me, a bad DM, should be called out by his players as being a bad DM."
I also agree with this but how it's handled can be tricky. Speaking to BioWIzards point. Coming at the DM with "Hey look. These 20 people online agree with me" may not be the best way to go about it. So I get that. Just like most other things a good conversation is probably the place to starts :) It's also tough being a DM. Being a good/great DM is very difficult. Aside from all the rules (which we know there are a shit ton) you have to be a story teller, a character actor, at times a mathematician, an encyclopedia, an arbitrator, a hero, a villain... I don't think I need to go on. So I can understand a DM being offended, by being challenged, after putting in all this work to run a game. Personally, that's not me. I don't mind and I don't get offended. I have had many times where I was disappointed because I put a lot of work into something that I thought was going to be awesome and the players figured out a way (intentionally or not) to blow right past it. lol. But hey, that can be part of the fun too! (sorry drifted off topic there a bit)
"I have definitely seen an increase in the "GM is always right" posts over the past 5 or 6 months. I am not saying I disagree with that statement, but it's definitely getting thrown around at a higher degree than it used to in the forums."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed :) And the continuation of posting after a question is answered is kinda crazy! Especially when even the OP posts saying "Thanks! That answers my question" and then people keep posting and posting. Haha! It's kind of funny. I think sometimes people don't bother reading the thread and just just answer regardless of what's been posted before. Assuming innocent intent here. (Sorry, kind of going off topic here too but it is somewhat related. Especially like you mentioned when the question is answered or rule clarified and then a bunch of posts past that point say "Deal with it. The DM is always right)
"And if you find out that there is no consensus or compromise you can reach, you may want to look for a different group"
Ultimately this is what it comes down to. If you're not meshing with a group over rules, and/or how they are handled, or discussed then that's really the final option. Like I had said earlier, part of this post is really to set the intention of lets work together to keep new players and DM's on track so this doesn't happen. Having to leave a game over rule discrepancies sucks. Well, having to leave for any reason sucks. Especially now when there's a shortage of DM's and SO SO many new players!
I think there's a lot of good take-aways from this thread. I think the most important, and seems to be agreed upon by most everyone, is...
Have a discussion in session 0 about how rule discrepancies are going to be handled! If you want to run your game that some rules may take a back seat to further the story, great! If you put out there that this is a strict RAW game, all good! At least that way everyone knows what they are getting into and hopefully will avoid conflicts down the road :)
***This PSA brought to you by the fine folks on the forums at DND Beyond :)
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules