I think a DM can be wrong. They can make incorrect rulings and bad decisions. It is their game, they can run it how they like. However, I don't see any issue if the players point out their mistakes and ask for consistent rulings. DMs are people too. They forget rules, they misinterpret rules, they misunderstand rules. The DM may INTEND to run a certain kind of game using a certain stated set of rules but then not implement what they are saying they intend to. If they then make a mistake, a player mentions this to them and the DM then doubles down saying "Well, that is how it will work in my game from now on" .. who wins? Who is having fun?
The players want a DM who creates a consistent and reliable world that they can interact with. The DM arbitrates the player interactions and has control of the rest of the world and the plots outside of the player characters. The DM sets the scene, they control what is available in the world - magic/no magic, elves/no elves etc - but whatever rules they have said they are aiming at implementing, those are the ones they need to be working towards using. Not some seat of the pants, make it up as they go, don't care if it matches what was published or even what they said in the previous session. It is part of the tacit agreement between players and DM - the world they are in will be consistent with whatever its own internal logic might be. If the DM is inconsistent, they can expect the players to justifiably mention it ... and get frustrated.
Anyway, it is the DMs world, they have 100% control over content. However, the players and DM have a shared understanding of the rules in play. The DM needs to make clear what those rules are from the beginning and they need to work toward being consistent with what they have stated - otherwise they can expect some feedback and perhaps a dearth of players depending on how serious and how inconsistent the issues are. It's the DMs game, they have the final say on rules and rulings but having the final say doesn't mean that they are always right and if they are wrong too often ... players can and do just leave.
I think the main thing for me is: avoid rules ambushes. This applies both to the players and the DM. Players should have a general idea of how something will be resolved before they try it (at least, as much as their characters would know), but the players in turn should not make assumptions.
I haven't been here long enough to see the "increase in 'GM is always right' over the past 5-6 months", but I have read quite a few of the threads I suppose this refers to - and possibly been a part of the "choir".
First, I completely agree that the DM is not always right, but at the table his/her rule is "law". BigLiz had a good discussion on what rule 0 is and is not. I'll add that to me, it's also important that at the table I make a ruling, and that is how it will work. If I'm uncertain if I am "right", I will tell my players, and I'll check out the rules before the next session. This is important to not "bog" down play with long rules discussions. (and please, I'm not talking about telling players mid-session that their new spell doesn't exists, that's just stupid).
What I'm a little surprised about quite a few of these questions which get the "GM is always right" answers, is why they haven't talked to their GM. There was a thread about a DM not allowing multiclassing for instance. (Yes, these are optional rules, and yes your DM is in his/her "right" to not use them.) What surprises me is that the player didn't seem to have even asked the DM why, but went straight here to "clarify" this as a "legal" matter. My impression is that quite a few of those questions isn't about DM's obviously interpreting the rules wrong, but often players who "disagree" with the DM's decisions. The answers can usually be summarized more or less to: "Yes, your DM can decide that. Yes he is a total jerk if he didn't tell you that before because he should have told you that on session 0".
What surprises me is that the player didn't seem to have even asked the DM why, but went straight here to "clarify" this as a "legal" matter. My impression is that quite a few of those questions isn't about DM's obviously interpreting the rules wrong, but often players who "disagree" with the DM's decisions.
You are correct. This is about players wanting to find a way to overrule a DM on a decision with which the player doesn't agree. Since there isn't any good way to do that in how the game is played, they come here to get a "higher authority" than the DM overrule the DM. That "higher authority" would potentially either be one of the admins here at DDB, or failing that (and much more likely) the weight of a consensus by other DMs who read this site in favor of the player.
But this is not anything new to the internet. In fact, players have been doing this since the birth of the game. I remember watching a video about the history of D&D (might have been one of Colville's... probably was, but sorry, I can't remember which one now) describing how in the old days, Gygax's phone number was listed in the phone book and people would actually call him up and ask for rulings. Or (I assume much more commonly) people would write letters to TSR asking for rulings (I did this in 8th grade). And in those days TSR was small enough and I guess the # of people calling/writing was small enough that they could actually answer. But according to this story, Gygax hated this. And no, not just because people were disturbing him at his home or office, but because he didn't think it was his place, despite being listed as the main author of the game, to be overruling DMs. He wanted people to make their own calls and stop asking him for rulings. In fact, again according to this video whose source I can't remember, one of the reasons AD&D became so "rules lawyerish" compared to earlier versions of the game, and so thick and so full of all the "do's and don'ts" was because Gygax got sick and tired of people asking him how to rule on things, so he just said screw it, I'll write a rule for everything. He supposedly didn't actually want to do this, but the players kind of forced his hand.
So this is not a new phenomenon. DMs are like a ref at a ball game, and the players are the guy who got called for roughing or being out of bounds who is asking for an "official review" -- you don't ask for an official review when you think the ref was right. And notice, by the way, if you've ever watched a sport that has official review, that they have to take a time out (or the equivalent) for the review and it completely stops play for up to several minutes while the review is happening. Which bogs down the gameplay -- exactly why you are not supposed to be challenging DM rulings at the table.
So what do you do if the DM has made a mistake about the rules? Bring it up once, politely. "Actually doesn't X work like this?" If the DM wants to deal with checking the rules right then, fine. If the DM says, "I'm ruling this way," then you live with it. After the session you can bring it up once, politely, again. But if the DM still says "this is how I am playing it," then you live with that. Or find another campaign.
Now as I've said, I had this happen in the last session. I hadn't ever had a character fall to 0 hp in 5e so far (in my day, 0 hp = dead). The cleric was the one who fell to 0 so there was no one with healing to help him (and the party was focused on the dying cleric and did not think to search the necromancer they had just killed, who had a healing salve on him). Cleric failed his first death save, so the other players said, "can we do anything?" I said (incorrectly!) that if they had a healer's kid they could make a medicine check, and the cleric corrected me, explaining that medicine checks to stabilize can be made regardless of whether you have a kit. He said this very politely, something like, "Actually, I think anyone can make a medicine check, the kit just lets you stabilize without needing to roll the skill." I immediately said, "OK, who wants to make the medicine check?" Highest person made the roll, got a 17 or something, stabilized the cleric. This, IMO, is how one handles such a situation.
But... not every player is this polite while correcting a mistake in rule-interpretation by the DM. Not every DM wants to admit to a mistake in front of the players. And not every rule is straightforward as the stabilization rules, so sometimes people in good conscience still disagree on how a ruling should be made. So then you get people coming on here wanting to overrule their DM about a ruling.
Again, it's been going on since the 70s. It will probably go on for as long as D&D exists...
Not only consistency, but transparency. Perhaps even transparency over consistency.
The rules can be whatever the DM & the Players have negotiated. In fact, tweaking rule interpretations, optional rules, house rules, and use of UA to make the style of the game suit the preferences of the Group is - in my opinion - a good thing. There is nothing sacrosanct about RAW, just because it was published in a book. RAW represents the optimum set of rules for the Writers ( maybe ), and the set of rules which they hope will suit the most people out there, on average.
The optimum type of game, and style of play for a Table, is going to vary from group to group, or even in the same group over time as the set of Players changes, or their preferences change. Rules and Mechanics determine the the type of game that results, the style of play, and the game's atmosphere & tone. That's their purpose: they exist to create a known framework of goals, obstacles, choices, and the means or resolving the consequences of those choices - all to create a specific type of game & play style. Since the optimum type & style of game varies with differing groups, the optimum set of rules ( RAW, house, optional, et. al. ) for those groups will also vary.
And since no one is perfect at predicting what effect rules and rule changes will have on the game, I believe that rules can shift in the course of an episodic ongoing Campaign to align the game with a desired style of play: OK, we all agreed that we wanted the game to be more tactically interesting, so we adopted this house rule, but it's not doing what we thought it would. Are we all OK phasing this out? The writers at WoTC do this as well; it's called a D&D edition change.
But - it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows what the rules are, and how the world works! Players cannot make meaningful choices in pursuit of their goals if the world works in a manner that they cannot predict. That's not the same as making choices based on incomplete knowledge, and incorrect assumptions - that's acceptable - but when basics of how abilities, spells, and combat mechanics work suddenly change without Player knowledge and buy-in, that's unfair. GMs need Player acknowledgement, and Player buy-in, in order to change the rules fairly.
Additionally, I believe that rule changes which nullify past Player choices - I know you took that Feat 4 levels ago, but we're discontinuing it because it's super OP - are unfair unless you afford them the opportunity to retroactively make a new choice, with full knowledge of how the world works under the new rules - but you can absolutely select a new Feat right now even though you wouldn't normally get one until level up.
That said, mistakes happen in play: unfortunate but true. People make mistakes; GMs are people; so are Players. I don't agree with the above example where the rules of how the world work change to cover a GM mistake. To me that seems like randomly changing the rules, based on a mistake, without considering the impact that change in the rule would have on the style of the game, or the game world at large ( high cost components limit the use of some spells in the general population; without that restriction, Revivify should be much more common - not commonplace since it's a high level spell few casters attain, but more common ). In that case, I totally would have said "well, I forgot that rule, but you'll have to do it next time". I would have screwed up; I own it. I might have docked the Party 300 g.p. out of their Bag of Holding to reflect a diamond purchase in the past which retroactively should have happened, but I think Players can accept that. If they didn't have 300 g.p. ... well, I guess they just got super lucky. Or the God intervened. Or whatever you want to plaster over the phrase "the GM screwed up, so you got a freebie" :p
Likewise with rule interpretations. I don't believe in derailing play to go book diving. I totally support the idea of the GM making a "this is the way we're going to roll with it for now", or even accepting a Player stepping up with knowledge of the details of that particular ruling, rather than having play just stop. Later upon review ( and you should be reviewing those heat-of-the-moment rulings ) it might turn out that wasn't the best interpretation. OK - mistakes happen, and we adjust how we do that moving forward, and maybe we ret-con some things in the past to reflect it. Or not; if that's the only inconsistency you have in your Narrative, then I doff my hat to you, good sir-or-madam.
IMO, rules can change, but those changes - if they occur - should happen deliberately to make the type and style of the game better suit the Table. They need to happen openly, with everyone aware of the changes, and with full Player buy-in. And rules can get bent, or broken, or forgotten, in the heat of the moment. That's life. You fix it, note it, try not to do it again, and you move on.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I respect and mostly agree with your position, however, rather than spout my own position on this, instead, I want to share the opening introduction to the DMG, Introduction / The Dungeon Master. It is meaningful to your comment/question. It is up to the DM to decide ultimately, just as it is the players right to choose to not play in a DM's game of which they don't agree with how its run. Generally speaking, a player does not get to decide or vote on anything if the DM does not allow it. Again, read the last sentence, last paragraph, below. -------------------------------- "The Dungeon Master
The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. An adventure typically hinges on the successful completion of a quest, and can be as short as a single game session. Longer adventures might embroil players in great conflicts that require multiple game sessions to resolve. When strung together, these adventures form an ongoing campaign. A D&D campaign can include dozens of adventures and last for months or years.
A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what’s happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
But - it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows what the rules are, and how the world works! Players cannot make meaningful choices in pursuit of their goals if the world works in a manner that they cannot predict. That's not the same as making choices based on incomplete knowledge, and incorrect assumptions - that's acceptable - but when basics of how abilities, spells, and combat mechanics work suddenly change without Player knowledge and buy-in, that's unfair. GMs need Player acknowledgement, and Player buy-in, in order to change the rules fairly.
I agree with this 100%. A DM can and should alter rules and spells and anything else necessary to ensure a good game at the table (real or virtual).But that fun can't be had if the DM keeps yanking the rug out from under the players. Everything has to be above board and openly explained.
Additionally, I believe that rule changes which nullify past Player choices - I know you took that Feat 4 levels ago, but we're discontinuing it because it's super OP - are unfair unless you afford them the opportunity to retroactively make a new choice, with full knowledge of how the world works under the new rules - but you can absolutely select a new Feat right now even though you wouldn't normally get one until level up.
Again, I completely agree. I have told my players, since I am new to 5e, and others are new to either 5e or D&D, we will start with things this way, but if we see things are OP (or underpowered) we will change them as we go. But this is something I think we will agree as a table. I may notice it is OP and say "hey, this is way more powerful than I thought, and I think this has the potential to ruin the game. Can we agree to do something about it?" And of course, you get something in exchange. If I change how a spell works and a player says well, if I'd known that, I wouldn't have taken the spell, of course I would say, "take a new spell selection."
Heck, I just said that to our newest player who has never done D&D before and picked 2 Ranger spells. "You technically can change one each level, but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't like one that you picked, just pick a new one after a long rest." I want her to want to cast her spells not say "why did I pick these spells I hate?"
I totally would have said "well, I forgot that rule, but you'll have to do it next time". I would have screwed up; I own it. I might have docked the Party 300 g.p. out of their Bag of Holding to reflect a diamond purchase in the past which retroactively should have happened, but I think Players can accept that. If they didn't have 300 g.p. ... well, I guess they just got super lucky. Or the God intervened. Or whatever you want to plaster over the phrase "the GM screwed up, so you got a freebie" :p
I was thinking the same thing. I would not eliminate the material component forever after -- not because I forgot something. I probably wouldn't dock the 300 gp -- though I suspect my players are honest enough that they would propose it. Instead I would go with something like, the god intervened, try to do something IC with it if possible. But I would NOT let it just be that way from now on. Spells with expensive and specific material components are that way for a game balance reason. Abandon them and risk throwing off game balance.
Likewise with rule interpretations. I don't believe in derailing play to go book diving. I totally support the idea of the GM making a "this is the way we're going to roll with it for now", or even accepting a Player stepping up with knowledge of the details of that particular ruling, rather than having play just stop. Later upon review ( and you should be reviewing those heat-of-the-moment rulings ) it might turn out that wasn't the best interpretation. OK - mistakes happen, and we adjust how we do that moving forward, and maybe we ret-con some things in the past to reflect it. Or not; if that's the only inconsistency you have in your Narrative, then I doff my hat to you, good sir-or-madam.
Again, I agree. I try not to retcon if possible, but we will do it the correct way going forward, and not continue misinterpreting a rule just because of some misguided "stare decisis" rule. Ugh, my junior high game group had a "super stare decisis" where once something was ruled on one way by one DM we had to all live with it forever after because there was no retconning allowed. What a HUGE mistake that was.
Always, always fix things. Never leave them broken just because you ruled that way once.
As for this:
the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them
True as far as it goes. But I would add that a good DM does not make the decision to abide by or change rules unless it is for the good of the table, and the whole group. The rules may give the DM the power to issue edicts from on high, but a good DM generally won't.
But - it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows what the rules are, and how the world works! Players cannot make meaningful choices in pursuit of their goals if the world works in a manner that they cannot predict. That's not the same as making choices based on incomplete knowledge, and incorrect assumptions - that's acceptable - but when basics of how abilities, spells, and combat mechanics work suddenly change without Player knowledge and buy-in, that's unfair. GMs need Player acknowledgement, and Player buy-in, in order to change the rules fairly.
Agree 100% also. If a DM has house rules, or different interpretations of rules that are not discussed before the game that's not the players fault. That's the DM's responsibility. So a player challenging a ruling in that situation is, in my mind, not only accepted but expected. From what I've seen in those kinds of situation it often comes from the DM wanting a certain outcome and removing player agency.
And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
Quoting from the DMG is fine. I'm very familiar with it but you're providing incomplete information. There is much more discussed. Such as "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS isn't a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules." and "To referee the rules, you need to know them. You don't have to memorize this book or the Player's Handbook, but you should have a clear idea of their contents so that, when a situation requires a ruling, you know where to find the proper reference." Also "You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building"
We all know everyone runs their game their own way and can ultimately decide on a rule at any time. A DM making bad calls to control a situation, from lack of knowledge, or not establishing house rules up front shouldn't hide behind the above quote as justification. I think that's a very poor model for new DM's and players coming here looking for advice.
Thank you again everyone for sharing your thoughts and stories!
What I'd like to see for D&D at this point: a total count of every instance "check with your DM" or similar appears, and copy of what it's referring too, because that's the absolute minimum amount of house rulings you're looking at with ever DM, and the minimum number of questions the game design is dumping into the lap of the DM.
This has been an issue with D&D since inception, the concept the DM is the arbiter - not the advocate when it comes to rulings. In terms of game design, 5e is hot garbage, I swear they're getting paid by the letter. Contradictor statements, no tracking for interactions between statements, and highly ambiguous sentence structures that allow for multiple interpolations for RAW, side note - RAI - is a falsify, unless you're a mind reader, that's just one interruption.
Enter - the people who got paid to write this hot garbage dumping the problems with the system squarely in the lap of the person that is spending their free time trying make sense of it for their players... the DM.
Something everyone that plays this game should understand right off the bat - there is not such thing as a RAW table, because you're never going to get universal agreement on what RAW actually means in a lot of cases. D&D is fast and loose with the rules, very loose,, and it always has been, the wordier the editions have gotten that more that's been the case. Sorry, but the community knows that listening to one of the developers opinions is likely to get you contradictions, and they wrote it (badly to start with). But let's be honest - that's deliberate - the systems is "squishy" on purpose, so they can keep the drama, and sell you .... 6e! which will fix all of 5e's issues! It'll be fair, classes will be more balanced! better tools for DM's! more fun for players!
And it will still be the same hot garbage repackaged. Just how it is.
Fixing all the the things that you claim are wrong with D&D is like fixing the engine on a bicycle. It's clear that D&D isn't for you, and that's fair enough. Maybe go play a game that you actually enjoy, or spend some time just looking out a window and reflecting on the good things in your life. At the very least, Calm Down and Game On.
I really do hope you have a great day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This is a pretty old thread you revived here but I'm glad to read your comment! I I felt that I learnt a lot from this thread not just on different peoples interpretations of the game rules but also different DM styles. I"ve been playing since basic and agree the rules have always been "squishy". At the same time it can be frustrating or cause drama at a table. It's also something that's always been great about the game. Being able to decide that at your table "this" is how "that" works can be great. As long as those house rules are discussed up front..
What I find interesting about your comment is mention of 6e. I've heard talk that 6e is going to try and address the role playing aspect more and potentially introduce rules governing that. Personally I can't see how that would be anything but a hot mess. If people are arguing over rules about a casting mechanic I can't imagine how crazy it would get over rules about your personality in a game. That just seems nuts!
Fixing all the the things that you claim are wrong with D&D is like fixing the engine on a bicycle. It's clear that D&D isn't for you, and that's fair enough. Maybe go play a game that you actually enjoy, or spend some time just looking out a window and reflecting on the good things in your life. At the very least, Calm Down and Game On.
I really do hope you have a great day.
See that's the thing - it can be, with the right person running, which was, essentially my point. I do find it amusing that you assume I'm not calm though. This is just observation, I've been off and on with this hot mess since basic ;)
I think a DM can be wrong. They can make incorrect rulings and bad decisions. It is their game, they can run it how they like. However, I don't see any issue if the players point out their mistakes and ask for consistent rulings. DMs are people too. They forget rules, they misinterpret rules, they misunderstand rules. The DM may INTEND to run a certain kind of game using a certain stated set of rules but then not implement what they are saying they intend to. If they then make a mistake, a player mentions this to them and the DM then doubles down saying "Well, that is how it will work in my game from now on" .. who wins? Who is having fun?
The players want a DM who creates a consistent and reliable world that they can interact with. The DM arbitrates the player interactions and has control of the rest of the world and the plots outside of the player characters. The DM sets the scene, they control what is available in the world - magic/no magic, elves/no elves etc - but whatever rules they have said they are aiming at implementing, those are the ones they need to be working towards using. Not some seat of the pants, make it up as they go, don't care if it matches what was published or even what they said in the previous session. It is part of the tacit agreement between players and DM - the world they are in will be consistent with whatever its own internal logic might be. If the DM is inconsistent, they can expect the players to justifiably mention it ... and get frustrated.
Anyway, it is the DMs world, they have 100% control over content. However, the players and DM have a shared understanding of the rules in play. The DM needs to make clear what those rules are from the beginning and they need to work toward being consistent with what they have stated - otherwise they can expect some feedback and perhaps a dearth of players depending on how serious and how inconsistent the issues are. It's the DMs game, they have the final say on rules and rulings but having the final say doesn't mean that they are always right and if they are wrong too often ... players can and do just leave.
I think the main thing for me is: avoid rules ambushes. This applies both to the players and the DM. Players should have a general idea of how something will be resolved before they try it (at least, as much as their characters would know), but the players in turn should not make assumptions.
Basically, the DM and PCs should agree in advance what rules will be used, which will be altered, which will be null and what the house rules are.
The DM and PCs need to follow these rules to maintain the integrity of the game.
Possibly wandering off topic here...
I haven't been here long enough to see the "increase in 'GM is always right' over the past 5-6 months", but I have read quite a few of the threads I suppose this refers to - and possibly been a part of the "choir".
First, I completely agree that the DM is not always right, but at the table his/her rule is "law". BigLiz had a good discussion on what rule 0 is and is not. I'll add that to me, it's also important that at the table I make a ruling, and that is how it will work. If I'm uncertain if I am "right", I will tell my players, and I'll check out the rules before the next session. This is important to not "bog" down play with long rules discussions. (and please, I'm not talking about telling players mid-session that their new spell doesn't exists, that's just stupid).
What I'm a little surprised about quite a few of these questions which get the "GM is always right" answers, is why they haven't talked to their GM. There was a thread about a DM not allowing multiclassing for instance. (Yes, these are optional rules, and yes your DM is in his/her "right" to not use them.) What surprises me is that the player didn't seem to have even asked the DM why, but went straight here to "clarify" this as a "legal" matter. My impression is that quite a few of those questions isn't about DM's obviously interpreting the rules wrong, but often players who "disagree" with the DM's decisions. The answers can usually be summarized more or less to: "Yes, your DM can decide that. Yes he is a total jerk if he didn't tell you that before because he should have told you that on session 0".
And Pantagruel: 100% agree upon rule ambushes!
Ludo ergo sum!
You are correct. This is about players wanting to find a way to overrule a DM on a decision with which the player doesn't agree. Since there isn't any good way to do that in how the game is played, they come here to get a "higher authority" than the DM overrule the DM. That "higher authority" would potentially either be one of the admins here at DDB, or failing that (and much more likely) the weight of a consensus by other DMs who read this site in favor of the player.
But this is not anything new to the internet. In fact, players have been doing this since the birth of the game. I remember watching a video about the history of D&D (might have been one of Colville's... probably was, but sorry, I can't remember which one now) describing how in the old days, Gygax's phone number was listed in the phone book and people would actually call him up and ask for rulings. Or (I assume much more commonly) people would write letters to TSR asking for rulings (I did this in 8th grade). And in those days TSR was small enough and I guess the # of people calling/writing was small enough that they could actually answer. But according to this story, Gygax hated this. And no, not just because people were disturbing him at his home or office, but because he didn't think it was his place, despite being listed as the main author of the game, to be overruling DMs. He wanted people to make their own calls and stop asking him for rulings. In fact, again according to this video whose source I can't remember, one of the reasons AD&D became so "rules lawyerish" compared to earlier versions of the game, and so thick and so full of all the "do's and don'ts" was because Gygax got sick and tired of people asking him how to rule on things, so he just said screw it, I'll write a rule for everything. He supposedly didn't actually want to do this, but the players kind of forced his hand.
So this is not a new phenomenon. DMs are like a ref at a ball game, and the players are the guy who got called for roughing or being out of bounds who is asking for an "official review" -- you don't ask for an official review when you think the ref was right. And notice, by the way, if you've ever watched a sport that has official review, that they have to take a time out (or the equivalent) for the review and it completely stops play for up to several minutes while the review is happening. Which bogs down the gameplay -- exactly why you are not supposed to be challenging DM rulings at the table.
So what do you do if the DM has made a mistake about the rules? Bring it up once, politely. "Actually doesn't X work like this?" If the DM wants to deal with checking the rules right then, fine. If the DM says, "I'm ruling this way," then you live with it. After the session you can bring it up once, politely, again. But if the DM still says "this is how I am playing it," then you live with that. Or find another campaign.
Now as I've said, I had this happen in the last session. I hadn't ever had a character fall to 0 hp in 5e so far (in my day, 0 hp = dead). The cleric was the one who fell to 0 so there was no one with healing to help him (and the party was focused on the dying cleric and did not think to search the necromancer they had just killed, who had a healing salve on him). Cleric failed his first death save, so the other players said, "can we do anything?" I said (incorrectly!) that if they had a healer's kid they could make a medicine check, and the cleric corrected me, explaining that medicine checks to stabilize can be made regardless of whether you have a kit. He said this very politely, something like, "Actually, I think anyone can make a medicine check, the kit just lets you stabilize without needing to roll the skill." I immediately said, "OK, who wants to make the medicine check?" Highest person made the roll, got a 17 or something, stabilized the cleric. This, IMO, is how one handles such a situation.
But... not every player is this polite while correcting a mistake in rule-interpretation by the DM. Not every DM wants to admit to a mistake in front of the players. And not every rule is straightforward as the stabilization rules, so sometimes people in good conscience still disagree on how a ruling should be made. So then you get people coming on here wanting to overrule their DM about a ruling.
Again, it's been going on since the 70s. It will probably go on for as long as D&D exists...
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.
Not only consistency, but transparency. Perhaps even transparency over consistency.
The rules can be whatever the DM & the Players have negotiated. In fact, tweaking rule interpretations, optional rules, house rules, and use of UA to make the style of the game suit the preferences of the Group is - in my opinion - a good thing. There is nothing sacrosanct about RAW, just because it was published in a book. RAW represents the optimum set of rules for the Writers ( maybe ), and the set of rules which they hope will suit the most people out there, on average.
The optimum type of game, and style of play for a Table, is going to vary from group to group, or even in the same group over time as the set of Players changes, or their preferences change. Rules and Mechanics determine the the type of game that results, the style of play, and the game's atmosphere & tone. That's their purpose: they exist to create a known framework of goals, obstacles, choices, and the means or resolving the consequences of those choices - all to create a specific type of game & play style. Since the optimum type & style of game varies with differing groups, the optimum set of rules ( RAW, house, optional, et. al. ) for those groups will also vary.
And since no one is perfect at predicting what effect rules and rule changes will have on the game, I believe that rules can shift in the course of an episodic ongoing Campaign to align the game with a desired style of play: OK, we all agreed that we wanted the game to be more tactically interesting, so we adopted this house rule, but it's not doing what we thought it would. Are we all OK phasing this out? The writers at WoTC do this as well; it's called a D&D edition change.
But - it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows what the rules are, and how the world works! Players cannot make meaningful choices in pursuit of their goals if the world works in a manner that they cannot predict. That's not the same as making choices based on incomplete knowledge, and incorrect assumptions - that's acceptable - but when basics of how abilities, spells, and combat mechanics work suddenly change without Player knowledge and buy-in, that's unfair. GMs need Player acknowledgement, and Player buy-in, in order to change the rules fairly.
Additionally, I believe that rule changes which nullify past Player choices - I know you took that Feat 4 levels ago, but we're discontinuing it because it's super OP - are unfair unless you afford them the opportunity to retroactively make a new choice, with full knowledge of how the world works under the new rules - but you can absolutely select a new Feat right now even though you wouldn't normally get one until level up.
That said, mistakes happen in play: unfortunate but true. People make mistakes; GMs are people; so are Players. I don't agree with the above example where the rules of how the world work change to cover a GM mistake. To me that seems like randomly changing the rules, based on a mistake, without considering the impact that change in the rule would have on the style of the game, or the game world at large ( high cost components limit the use of some spells in the general population; without that restriction, Revivify should be much more common - not commonplace since it's a high level spell few casters attain, but more common ). In that case, I totally would have said "well, I forgot that rule, but you'll have to do it next time". I would have screwed up; I own it. I might have docked the Party 300 g.p. out of their Bag of Holding to reflect a diamond purchase in the past which retroactively should have happened, but I think Players can accept that. If they didn't have 300 g.p. ... well, I guess they just got super lucky. Or the God intervened. Or whatever you want to plaster over the phrase "the GM screwed up, so you got a freebie" :p
Likewise with rule interpretations. I don't believe in derailing play to go book diving. I totally support the idea of the GM making a "this is the way we're going to roll with it for now", or even accepting a Player stepping up with knowledge of the details of that particular ruling, rather than having play just stop. Later upon review ( and you should be reviewing those heat-of-the-moment rulings ) it might turn out that wasn't the best interpretation. OK - mistakes happen, and we adjust how we do that moving forward, and maybe we ret-con some things in the past to reflect it. Or not; if that's the only inconsistency you have in your Narrative, then I doff my hat to you, good sir-or-madam.
IMO, rules can change, but those changes - if they occur - should happen deliberately to make the type and style of the game better suit the Table. They need to happen openly, with everyone aware of the changes, and with full Player buy-in. And rules can get bent, or broken, or forgotten, in the heat of the moment. That's life. You fix it, note it, try not to do it again, and you move on.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I respect and mostly agree with your position, however, rather than spout my own position on this, instead, I want to share the opening introduction to the DMG, Introduction / The Dungeon Master. It is meaningful to your comment/question. It is up to the DM to decide ultimately, just as it is the players right to choose to not play in a DM's game of which they don't agree with how its run. Generally speaking, a player does not get to decide or vote on anything if the DM does not allow it. Again, read the last sentence, last paragraph, below.
--------------------------------
"The Dungeon Master
The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. An adventure typically hinges on the successful completion of a quest, and can be as short as a single game session. Longer adventures might embroil players in great conflicts that require multiple game sessions to resolve. When strung together, these adventures form an ongoing campaign. A D&D campaign can include dozens of adventures and last for months or years.
A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what’s happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
I agree with this 100%. A DM can and should alter rules and spells and anything else necessary to ensure a good game at the table (real or virtual).But that fun can't be had if the DM keeps yanking the rug out from under the players. Everything has to be above board and openly explained.
Again, I completely agree. I have told my players, since I am new to 5e, and others are new to either 5e or D&D, we will start with things this way, but if we see things are OP (or underpowered) we will change them as we go. But this is something I think we will agree as a table. I may notice it is OP and say "hey, this is way more powerful than I thought, and I think this has the potential to ruin the game. Can we agree to do something about it?" And of course, you get something in exchange. If I change how a spell works and a player says well, if I'd known that, I wouldn't have taken the spell, of course I would say, "take a new spell selection."
Heck, I just said that to our newest player who has never done D&D before and picked 2 Ranger spells. "You technically can change one each level, but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't like one that you picked, just pick a new one after a long rest." I want her to want to cast her spells not say "why did I pick these spells I hate?"
I was thinking the same thing. I would not eliminate the material component forever after -- not because I forgot something. I probably wouldn't dock the 300 gp -- though I suspect my players are honest enough that they would propose it. Instead I would go with something like, the god intervened, try to do something IC with it if possible. But I would NOT let it just be that way from now on. Spells with expensive and specific material components are that way for a game balance reason. Abandon them and risk throwing off game balance.
Again, I agree. I try not to retcon if possible, but we will do it the correct way going forward, and not continue misinterpreting a rule just because of some misguided "stare decisis" rule. Ugh, my junior high game group had a "super stare decisis" where once something was ruled on one way by one DM we had to all live with it forever after because there was no retconning allowed. What a HUGE mistake that was.
Always, always fix things. Never leave them broken just because you ruled that way once.
As for this:
True as far as it goes. But I would add that a good DM does not make the decision to abide by or change rules unless it is for the good of the table, and the whole group. The rules may give the DM the power to issue edicts from on high, but a good DM generally won't.
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.
Agree 100% also. If a DM has house rules, or different interpretations of rules that are not discussed before the game that's not the players fault. That's the DM's responsibility. So a player challenging a ruling in that situation is, in my mind, not only accepted but expected. From what I've seen in those kinds of situation it often comes from the DM wanting a certain outcome and removing player agency.
Quoting from the DMG is fine. I'm very familiar with it but you're providing incomplete information. There is much more discussed. Such as "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS isn't a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules." and "To referee the rules, you need to know them. You don't have to memorize this book or the Player's Handbook, but you should have a clear idea of their contents so that, when a situation requires a ruling, you know where to find the proper reference." Also "You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building"
We all know everyone runs their game their own way and can ultimately decide on a rule at any time. A DM making bad calls to control a situation, from lack of knowledge, or not establishing house rules up front shouldn't hide behind the above quote as justification. I think that's a very poor model for new DM's and players coming here looking for advice.
Thank you again everyone for sharing your thoughts and stories!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
What I'd like to see for D&D at this point: a total count of every instance "check with your DM" or similar appears, and copy of what it's referring too, because that's the absolute minimum amount of house rulings you're looking at with ever DM, and the minimum number of questions the game design is dumping into the lap of the DM.
This has been an issue with D&D since inception, the concept the DM is the arbiter - not the advocate when it comes to rulings. In terms of game design, 5e is hot garbage, I swear they're getting paid by the letter. Contradictor statements, no tracking for interactions between statements, and highly ambiguous sentence structures that allow for multiple interpolations for RAW, side note - RAI - is a falsify, unless you're a mind reader, that's just one interruption.
Enter - the people who got paid to write this hot garbage dumping the problems with the system squarely in the lap of the person that is spending their free time trying make sense of it for their players... the DM.
Something everyone that plays this game should understand right off the bat - there is not such thing as a RAW table, because you're never going to get universal agreement on what RAW actually means in a lot of cases. D&D is fast and loose with the rules, very loose,, and it always has been, the wordier the editions have gotten that more that's been the case. Sorry, but the community knows that listening to one of the developers opinions is likely to get you contradictions, and they wrote it (badly to start with). But let's be honest - that's deliberate - the systems is "squishy" on purpose, so they can keep the drama, and sell you .... 6e! which will fix all of 5e's issues! It'll be fair, classes will be more balanced! better tools for DM's! more fun for players!
And it will still be the same hot garbage repackaged. Just how it is.
Fixing all the the things that you claim are wrong with D&D is like fixing the engine on a bicycle. It's clear that D&D isn't for you, and that's fair enough. Maybe go play a game that you actually enjoy, or spend some time just looking out a window and reflecting on the good things in your life. At the very least, Calm Down and Game On.
I really do hope you have a great day.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This is a pretty old thread you revived here but I'm glad to read your comment! I I felt that I learnt a lot from this thread not just on different peoples interpretations of the game rules but also different DM styles. I"ve been playing since basic and agree the rules have always been "squishy". At the same time it can be frustrating or cause drama at a table. It's also something that's always been great about the game. Being able to decide that at your table "this" is how "that" works can be great. As long as those house rules are discussed up front..
What I find interesting about your comment is mention of 6e. I've heard talk that 6e is going to try and address the role playing aspect more and potentially introduce rules governing that. Personally I can't see how that would be anything but a hot mess. If people are arguing over rules about a casting mechanic I can't imagine how crazy it would get over rules about your personality in a game. That just seems nuts!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
See that's the thing - it can be, with the right person running, which was, essentially my point. I do find it amusing that you assume I'm not calm though. This is just observation, I've been off and on with this hot mess since basic ;)