Another one of those days:
This made me take my DM screen and hand it over to a player during the game:
The team was crawling through a dungeon. The rogue was walking along the ceiling with his slippers of spider walking and scouting out traps or ambushes with the aid of his robe of eyes. When another player clues together there is a medusa in the area he wants to jump up to the ceiling and grapple the robe off the rogue. (Why? because the robe has so many eyes that the wearer auto-fails saves vs. gaze attacks).
I told him to make the rolls, but if the rogue rolled a 19 or a 20 the robe would land on top of the jumping character eyes-out because it was a 20' jump (think parachute style).
The rogue rolls a 19. So I tell the jumper he is now covered with the robe like a parachute when he lands on the ground.
He then says he was just trying to grapple the rogue off the ceiling, not actually trying to disrobe him (pun!).
The disrobe roll was made, as well as the random roll for how the robe was faced when it landed, too. The results were defined by myself to both players before the attempts were made.
The jumping player argued with me until I finally stood up and handed him the DM screen and told him, "Here, I don't want to argue about this."
The Rule Lawyer then stepped in and offered to explain how 'the book' prescribes handling disrobe attempts (it's actually in there!). I suggested we 'go back' and try the attempt by-the-book. All agreed and whammo(!) dice were rolled and we moved on.
I don't mind having a Rule Lawyer telling me how the book prescribes to resolve a task or conflict. I really don't. The rules for D&D3.x are too byzantine for me to even try anything but a close guess (unless I stop the game). It helps me, and the rest of the team as well (by listening and learning the rule, too.)
During the game, however, if I am going by a hip-pocket-rule and tell the player he can try to do something but a roll of a x means y happens ... and they then roll. That, to me, falls under the most basic gaming convention of all. The verbal agreement between two players that these dice now mean this when rolled.
And to change your stated attempt after the die falls (i.e. saying that he is now grappling the rogue instead of disrobing him) ... well, as they say in chess "once you take your hand off ..."
Ouch, that sucks man.
At least in that other game you can just quickly do SIEGE checks eh? Although tat won't help with the "hand of the piece" problem.
This is an age old tradition of gaming (unfortunately).
"I did too! I told you I was casting mordenkainen's watchdog back at the tavern!"
From here
P.S. Yeah, my CK loves her hippocket SIEGE checks. ;)
So let me get this straight, you decided upon a way to handle this(all of you), rolled the dice and confirmed the results. If he starts whining after that, tough cookie.
You're the DM, your word is law. It doesn't matter if you don't stick to the rules as long as you do it consistently.
I think it's quite clear: You told them what you intent to do, rules-wise. They accepted. They had bad luck with the dice. They whined. You didn't slapt them beck to their senses.
Your only error was that last part ;-)
Seriously: If they heard what would happen, they agreed. They were okay with it. Only when it went badly for them (as you told them it might) they complained, and suddenly weren't agreeing with what would happen any more.
Yeah, events like that are why I started providing a written player's guide to each player every time I start a new campaign. I always go through it with the players when we start the campaign and make sure they know all the house rules and how I'm going to be doing things. Also, like you I'm careful to explain how I'm going to decide things rather than just rolling dice and announcing the results. This has kept me out of a lot of situations.
And then there are the players who just insist on arguing. Like the LN dwarven cleric of Wee Jas who insisted on getting into a philosophical debate with his superior because he didn't think it was "lawful" to execute prisoners - even though a court of law and the tenets of his religion decreed they should be executed for their crimes. Sheesh.
In principle I agree that once the rule is made and the dice rolled - it is done. Also the DM is the arbiter of these things BUT....
Havent we all had DM's suddenly spout a rule that you dont agree with. You may say you disagree and start to argue but the DM says just roll.
Example of a game I played in years ago, I was playing a thief about 1st to 3rd level (1st edition I think)I tried to climb over a 20' wall and failed. The DM says:
:right there is a 1 in 8 chance when you fall you hit your head and take ten times damage.
I said you have got to be kidding.
He rolled a 1
I died.
I dont think your example was as arbitrary -- plus I feel the frustration at having the players basically get a second go once they failed. I bet they would not have raised the argument had the result been favourable. As a minimum if I think I got the ruling a bit off I make them keep the bad roll.
Well, the disrobe attempt , the one we did by the book (the do-over). It wasn't successful. That roll was botched and I had to decide on-the-spot if slippers of spider walking would stick a dude to a ceiling if he is turned to stone. Or drop like a rock (so to speak).
In principle I agree that once the rule is made and the dice rolled - it is done. Also the DM is the arbiter of these things BUT....
Havent we all had DM's suddenly spout a rule that you dont agree with. You may say you disagree and start to argue but the DM says just roll.
Example of a game I played in years ago, I was playing a thief about 1st to 3rd level (1st edition I think)I tried to climb over a 20' wall and failed. The DM says:
:right there is a 1 in 8 chance when you fall you hit your head and take ten times damage.
I said you have got to be kidding.
He rolled a 1
I died.I dont think your example was as arbitrary -- plus I feel the frustration at having the players basically get a second go once they failed. I bet they would not have raised the argument had the result been favourable. As a minimum if I think I got the ruling a bit off I make them keep the bad roll.
Yes, arbitrariness can be a problem. That's why I'm careful to explain things to my players up front. If they don't like it, we can talk about it. If together we can't come up with a working solution, they're free to go elsewhere. The key is, there are no surprises and everybody knows where they stand.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
As a DM, I've had this happen a bunch of times. You lay out the option, decide how success will be determined, and everyone agrees. Then, the PC blows it and gets killed/takes massive damage, and it turns into a whine fest.
Generally, when this happens, I just look at them and tell them that "stuff happens," and that sometimes bad luck hits PCs just like it hits people in real life. Since everyone agreed to the process for determining success, no one has a valid argument to dispute the result.
Generally, the group accepts the result of bad die rolls, but once in a while, the whining gets bad. I've never overturned a ruling due to whining, though, and after a brief smoke break where the other players can talk through what just happened, the whining generally stops and we keep playing.
I had to decide on-the-spot if slippers of spider walking would stick a dude to a ceiling if he is turned to stone.
What do you think stalactites come from? You didn't believe that pseudo-scientific nonsense about water dripping there, leaving behind stuff? I mean, come on, it's obvious it involves basilisks, gorgons, medusae, cockatrices (and the like) and people using slippers of spider climbing (or the spell itself).
Go ahead, cast stone to flesh at any stalactite and I can almost guarantee you that you'll find a dude hanging there upside down looking bewildered.
Havent we all had DM's suddenly spout a rule that you dont agree with. You may say you disagree and start to argue but the DM says just roll.
From what I read, they agreed to it beforehand. No "just roll" involved. They only started to complain once things went south.
From what I read, they agreed to it beforehand. No "just roll" involved. They only started to complain once things went south.
Yeah, he went from "I'm jumping up there and grabbing his robe and pulling it off of him and down with me." to "I said I was just going to grapple him off the ceiling."
Well, I thought it would be funner to have the rogue stick to the ceiling and watch the team (who rather quickly dispatched the medusa) figure out how to get him off/dispelled then go and figure out what the hardness of a statue is and what damage it takes from a fall and/or if it lands on the jumping guy (who should logically be close to under it). I was already done with looking up arcane rules from the book and wanted to just pose a quick puzzler to the team.
Using RAW, you'd have to pin the rogue first.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grabbingItems
Another solution is to delay and let the rogue take an action to remove the robe and drop it as a free action.
Depending on the game style, looking up rules and having a DM that is rules savvy can be important.
If the game style is either fast or narrative, stopping to find a rule can seem disruptive.
If the game style is strategic and simulationist, a player's understanding of the risk involved provides a better decision. Once a table has mastered RAW the game flows as quickly as a more narrative game.
|
I have a rule when I DM. Don't rules lawyer me until we take a break or are done. After the game is done, I'll figure everything out. Nothing, NOTHING bothers me more than someone stopping the game to look through a whole bunch of books because I've made a quick shot. If they disagree, fine, I won't rush the dice.
In the above situation, I wouldn't have allowed them to "take back" the action after the robe was down. Yes, it sucks, but you don't always have tons of time to think through your actions through hind sight.
|
The team was crawling through a dungeon. The rogue was walking along the ceiling with his slippers of spider walking and scouting out traps or ambushes with the aid of his robe of eyes.Hmmm, all he needs is Hefner's Pyjamas of Sexual Mojo and he's got the whole outfit.
Yeah, he can check out all the honeys across the room while keeping his eyes on the woman he's sweet-talking at the moment.
...well, as they say in chess "once you take your hand off ..."
Almost pointless trivia: once your hand's off the piece in chess, you've moved -- unless you first declare "I adjust" or "j'adoube." (Actually, you can't even touch a piece without this declaration)
I agree with CharlieRock -- the same applies in D&D.
As a DM your word is law. I don't care if the PC is a rules-lawyer; they can disagree with my ruling but they don't get to keep whining and b%~+%ing. The whining is a sure way to death for a PC at my table.
The sooner they learn that, then the better the game will be. Fear of death can be an extremely effective teacher.
|
|
The whining is a sure way to death for a PC at my table.
This is indistinguishable from, "You killed my character; I hope you brought your bus pass."
If the player is being a jerk, it needs to be handled out of game. In-game consequences for out-of-game actions and out-of-game consequences for in-game actions are both Very Bad Ideas (tm).
A few thoughts gentlemen:
I think that it is unwise for any GM to take the position that it is “My way or the Highway” or “my word is law”. This mentality is detrimental to any group or relationship (gaming or otherwise). I don’t have to be a psychologist to tell that. I deem it highly unwise to Shut down any debate or question concerning a ruling, that you as a GM make. Equally unwise is to prevent a player from looking up a rule in one of the books allowed in the game when a dispute concerning a rule comes about. The Core Book rules provide the foundation of the game. These rules define what both player and GM can do. For a GM to ignore these on a frequent OR infrequent basis undermines the integrity of the game, and of the GM/player relationship. By having iron-clad rules, everyone at the table knows what can be done, and what can’t be done. House rules done ahead of time can be made if certain rules don’t jive with what the GM/group wants. The ability of players to refer to a rule book gives them confidence that the game is being run fairly and correctly. And you as a GM should not feel that your “Authority” is being challenged (because in reality, you have no “authority”). Using kindness and diplomacy will ultimately contribute to an environment where both players and GM’s feel the game is run fairly and disagreements are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
|
...well, as they say in chess "once you take your hand off ..."Almost pointless trivia: once your hand's off the piece in chess, you've moved -- unless you first declare "I adjust" or "j'adoube." (Actually, you can't even touch a piece without this declaration)
Hey, neet, I can add a post that doesn't focus on my sadness for gaming group atmospheres that have these silly arguments.
In tournament chess, your move is not over until you "hit your clock." That is the mechanic for simoultaneously pausing your own "countdown" time and resuming your opponent's "countdown" time.
Keep in mind that, in standard time control matches this is pretty much {i]never[/i] an issue (except maybe for kids). In Blitz time controls, however, it can become a serious issue because your moves are so fast. Your move ends only when you "hit the button."
Thus, if white places his light squared Bishop on c4 (say, from F1), he may then, before he hits the clock, move it instead to E2. Of course, like you said, unless the player declares a piece adjustment beforehand, he still must move the Bishop somewhere (unless it's illegal for him to do so).
[/Threadjack]
-W. E. Ray
I disagree with the initial premise that the cloak stood a chance of falling over the jumping character's head (which I'm guessing would have left him turned to stone), but that's really a DM style issue*. I certainly do agree that, since they had agreed to the proposed actions, its possible consequences, and the method of determination, that they should have accepted the results. The DM may not be a dictator, but it is still the DM's role, even obligation, to make and enforce these rulings.
*I also disagree with allowing the slippers of spider climbing to continue functionality once they were turned to stone. But again, it's a style issue; neither is right or wrong. My take is that there's nothing in the rules to indicate that the cloak would have fallen over the jumper's eyes, or that the slippers would keep working as stone, and so it simply wouldn't happen.
I'll go so far as to caution against things like the cloak falling over the jumper's eyes. Many DMs seem to have this weird tendency to look for admittedly "interesting" consequences whenever they have to adjudicate an action not covered in the rules. Unfortunately, these consequences, often proclaimed as "logical," many times seem far fetched, and are rarely fun for the players (from my perspective). Further, they don't add more to the game except unnecessary challenges and drains on resources, resources the DM somehow feels a need to deplete to make things harder when, in fact, the adventure is already calibrated to do just that and the intent is (typically) for the players to win their encounters. In other words, the DM abusing his power for personal satisfaction. To me, that takes the thrill out of any challenge; I'm not trying to overcome a legitimate obstacle, I'm having to cope with a manifestation of the DM's ego.
Now, I'm not accusing the OP of having taken such an action or created such a situation. But it seems to have been a step in that direction. Again, it's a style issue and not necessarily right or wrong. But everyone needs to make sure they're on the same page at the table, or else you could get a player who shares my sentiments under a more "free form" DM, and the result would be a compromised game.
As an aside to my aside, this more "free form" trait seems to occur in younger groups (as in, middle and high school gaming circles) and in the so-called "grognards" who have strong connections to older editions. I base this just on what I've observed here at Paizo. Not sure what it means or even if it's correct; it just struck me as an interesting observation.
|
|
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
A few thoughts gentlemen:
I think that it is unwise for any GM to take the position that it is “My way or the Highway” or “my word is law”. This mentality is detrimental to any group or relationship (gaming or otherwise). I don’t have to be a psychologist to tell that. I deem it highly unwise to Shut down any debate or question concerning a ruling, that you as a GM make. Equally unwise is to prevent a player from looking up a rule in one of the books allowed in the game when a dispute concerning a rule comes about. The Core Book rules provide the foundation of the game. These rules define what both player and GM can do. For a GM to ignore these on a frequent OR infrequent basis undermines the integrity of the game, and of the GM/player relationship. By having iron-clad rules, everyone at the table knows what can be done, and what can’t be done. House rules done ahead of time can be made if certain rules don’t jive with what the GM/group wants. The ability of players to refer to a rule book gives them confidence that the game is being run fairly and correctly. And you as a GM should not feel that your “Authority” is being challenged (because in reality, you have no “authority”). Using kindness and diplomacy will ultimately contribute to an environment where both players and GM’s feel the game is run fairly and disagreements are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
The problem with this stance is that you can very quickly end up in a place where the rules simply don't cover what is about to take place. A good example in D&D is starting fires - you can't actually start fire. Can't be done - there are no rules for it. You can use fire to damage objects but you can't burn a house down unless your willing to constantly apply fire until the house has no more hps left.
Now, generally speaking, in my games, thats pretty much fine. I answer most players quaries about doing X or Y by following the rules and if there are no rules for it you can't do it - Want a burn a house down in my game - well thats just to bad - you can't.
Still its a pretty legitimate position for a group to decide that this is not a MMRPG and that the DM exits in part to decide what the rules are when there are no rules - or even when the rule is obscure and no one wants to stop a climatic fight to go and look them up.
Its really part of the social contract to decide how things are going to be done and I feel that part of the problem with the OPs situation is that there clearly is no real social contract everything is decided on a case by case basic through a b++@~ fest. Maybe it'd be worth the time to spend half the next session outlining what the social contract is going to be.
|
|
actually i have a campaign to play 2night and we have a debate on a dumb dm moment.
i have an elf ranger/wizard. i read scroll of true strike and i am attempting to shot into a tent at a shadow with a +20 to hit.
I am attempting to shoot into a tent at a shadow of a person with my long bow for 40ft.
my dm is arguing that the rules on true-sight detail that you must have a line of site to the target. my point is the shadow is that target, should i get the +20 or not?
please state your point and explain = )Ty
Generally, when this happens, I just look at them and tell them that "stuff happens," and that sometimes bad luck hits PCs just like it hits people in real life.
Yeah, but 10x damage from a 20 foot fall? I don't think I'd even have the heart to make a call like that one on a failed dexterity check, a 20 is rolled, and it turns out to be a critical failure. Rulings like that would make me want to have my mage want to learn telekinesis really badly! >;-)
With a 12.5% chance of cranial obliteration per TK, stand back or you'll get speckled with gray matter.