First of all, relevant comic.
What do you guys think? Obviously being an obnoxious prat until you get your way is not cool. But is a polite "I'm not sure it works that way" permissible in your group? Or should disagreements between players and GMs always happen between sessions and away from the table?
|
From time to time arguments come up and are not frowned upon at our table. Though for sake of a game running smoothly, if an agreement can not be reached the GM has the final say for the session. If its something folks feel strongly about after, rulings are then discussed between sessions. Its pretty rare for it to get to that point at my table.
I do want to say in regards to the comic, we have an understanding the game is part simulation and part fantasy. Arguing what "1D6" of damage means and how to accumulate it is not something we would get into. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that raising a polite "I'm not sure it works that way" is arguing.
Generally I expect if someone thinks a rule works differently than the GM rules they should raise it immediately. The GM should consider the point and if needs be check the rule. If checking is likely to take more than five minutes or so then the GM should note his ruling is interim and put the discussion to one side until after the game when you can discuss it in detail.
Ultimately though the interpretation of the GM is the one that holds if your arguments aren't persuasive enough.
|
Well first off the comic is sort of a silly exageration. If the GM says the spiked pit trap does 5d6 damage, it does. There's not really an argument you can make there about the rules.
At my table I absolutely expect players to let me know anytime I'm breaking a rule, and even encourage it. I'd rather not end up killing or severely hindering a PC because I messed up the rules on something.
As a player I do bring it up to the GM if they mess up a rule, but always politely. I then try to find the text as quickly as possible, and if I can't in a reasonable time I let it go until the end of the session when I can devote more time to it.
It definitely is appropriate sometimes, but ideally it should never become an argument. Rather, it should be a civil discussion between the GM and player(s).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, relevant comic.
What do you guys think? Obviously being an obnoxious prat until you get your way is not cool. But is a polite "I'm not sure it works that way" permissible in your group? Or should disagreements between players and GMs always happen between sessions and away from the table?
If easily resolved, we have someone look up the correct answer.
If not easily resolved, the person DMing makes a judgment call and, if necessary, revisits the problem after the game finishes.
Well first off the comic is sort of a silly exageration. If the GM says the spiked pit trap does 5d6 damage, it does.
You're right of course. Fighter in the comic has clearly crossed over the bad-wrong "arguing with the GM" line.
But suppose that you've got one of these GMs that says, "OK, you fall 20 feet into the pit. And because you're falling onto hard stone, let's make it 3d6 damage." I suppose that's the GM's prerogative, but I know my own "um, actually sense" is tingling at the thought. Is a polite "that's not exactly how it works" warranted? Or, as a matter of player policy, is it better to shrug it off and let the GM call the game uninterrupted?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case of doubt always make a call benefiting the players, then look up for answers and/or debate the issue when the session had ended. This always worked fine in our home table.
|
|
Well first off the comic is sort of a silly exageration. If the GM says the spiked pit trap does 5d6 damage, it does.You're right of course. Fighter in the comic has clearly crossed over the bad-wrong "arguing with the GM" line.
But suppose that you've got one of these GMs that says, "OK, you fall 20 feet into the pit. And because you're falling onto hard stone, let's make it 3d6 damage." I suppose that's the GM's prerogative, but I know my own "um, actually sense" is tingling at the thought. Is a polite "that's not exactly how it works" warranted? Or, as a matter of player policy, is it better to shrug it off and let the GM call the game uninterrupted?
I'd certainly at least raise the issue. Say something along the lines of "The falling rules were made to not care about what material you're falling on. It should really only be 2d6 damage whether you're falling on earth or stone, and I think that's more than fair for a 20 ft fall." And if the GM says "no, it's gonna be 3d6" I'd drop the issue there, as that's when you begin to cross the line from discussion into argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is fine to argue with the GM, as long as it is very rare and under one minute. Like every human, a GM makes mistakes, and it is fine to question it in a positive way, when it is an issue. Once the GM weighs the issue, and makes a ruling, any further debate should wait until after the session or (probably better) another day.
With that said, I have GM'd with people who argued all the time. It sucked the fun right out of the game, and made me want to quit completely. As a wise GM friend of mine once said, if this whole thing is going to just to boil down to combat rules arguments, I would rather play Mini's, and then I can at least win sometimes. I think the worst part about arguing with the GM is that the players are still going to win 95+% of the time, so f@@king chill out.
Like many other aspects of the game, strictness of rule following and "railroading" should be discussed before play. Everyone needs to be on the same page of whether the group is playtesting and following the rules completely, or if the GM is going by feel. Both of which are totally legit, but drastically different play styles.
GMs are people they get things wrong, sometimes these mistakes can impact the fun of the game, if you feel that you can't raise issues at such points then your table sounds kinda awkward to me.
In the 3D6 should be 2D6 example, I'd say,
a) consider whether your Dm knows the rule and is adjusting it or doesn't know it and how well they would respond the the correction.
b) does it matter? If one of you is between 13-18 health then that is a pretty significant issue, if you have 87 health it probably doesn't.
|
Say very politely: "You might want to double-check that. You may very well be right, but you might want to check — and I'll check, too."
No feelings hurt. Let's go to the book.
Don't do it often, and don't do it unless you need to (character is going to die or something similarly perilous), but do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like many other aspects of the game, strictness of rule following and "railroading" should be discussed before play. Everyone needs to be on the same page of whether the group is playtesting and following the rules completely, or if the GM is going by feel. Both of which are totally legit, but drastically different play styles.
Very much this. I had a game fall apart because we (the players) expected to very much follow the AP and the rules of the game, whereas the GM was constantly making up new rules/changing existing ones and almost always in a way the hurt us as players (After the game died we looked up the first book of the AP and found that he was even drastically altering or even straight up ignoring enemy tactics). I don't know if it was fully intentional or perhaps just ignorance, but it made sure that the game died before we even finished book 1.
|
I agree with Fergie. GMs make mistakes, and they should be pointed out. Gently and with a book if possible.
I've had sessions, though, where the players questioned everything I ruled. Where errors (or often non-errors) were pointed out snidely. Where the entire table ganged up on my about whether something was in fact a ranger's favored terrain. These times gave me a massive headache and made me want to quit.
I've never experienced this theme of players constantly arguing with the DM that some people have, but honestly it sounds like either
1) you were running a game they totally didn't want to play the way you were running
2) they're a$!#$~~s
3) you provoked them somehow.
People aren't usually just dicks for no reason, most of them want to actually play/enjoy the game.
|
|
I've never experienced this theme of players constantly arguing with the DM that some people have, but honestly it sounds like either
1) you were running a game they totally didn't want to play the way you were running
2) they're a#!~+$$s
3) you provoked them somehow.People aren't usually just dicks for no reason, most of them want to actually play/enjoy the game.
I think it's important to make a distinction between having a discussion about a ruling and hostile arguing about it.
It's regular in my games for a player to question a GM ruling that isn't RAW. But there's never any ill will or hostility and it's resolved quickly. I certainly wouldn't call it arguing myself.
|
|
we looked up the first book of the AP and found that he was even drastically altering or even straight up ignoring enemy tactics). I don't know if it was fully intentional or perhaps just ignorance
It's one thing to alter game rules on the fly. This IS something that needs to be agreed upon by everyone involved.
However, altering an adventure is totally within the Game Master's prerogative, and IMHO, the GM is not obliged to inform the table of any alterations to it. Nor does he need to seek the table's permission to do so.
In my experience, it is a rare GM that runs an adventure as it was written. Especially when it comes to how the adventure handles enemy tactics. Those are typically seen as "suggestions" rather than commandments.
|
|
Yeah, the main problem with the altered tactics here was that he was altering them in a way that made the encounters specifically harder on us (i.e. the unintelligent eel said to only attack to protect its den swimming to the surface to kill the caster who came nowhere near it and never attacked it.)
We also found out that he had been drastically editing stat blocks of enemies (gave an enemy that was already significantly over our CR over 20 extra hp and then saved us from a TPK using Deus ex Machina).
As a Gm, I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable with a player holding up a book and saying, "actually, The rules say this...". I think I would prefer something more along the lines of, "I think this is different then normal, is it special circumstances?" That way, the GM gets a reminder of what the rule is, and isn't backed into a corner. They can go by the players memory of the rules, stop to check the book, or make an on-the-fly ruling, without it turning into a confrontation.
Oh yeah, and the number one most important rule about starting a rules argument: Don't be wrong! I thank that is really important. If you're going to hold up the game, only do it when you are 100% sure, and when it actually affects play.
EDIT:
I've never experienced this theme of players constantly arguing with the DM that some people have,...
People aren't usually just dicks for no reason, most of them want to actually play/enjoy the game.
I don't think it is necessarily about them being dicks. Often it's more about having a contrarian personality, or getting enjoyment out of the minutiae of the game, or just lacking social skills. Unfortunately, these traits often appear in the same person. Also, an argumentative atmosphere affects some people differently then others. Some love it and some hate it. Some of the blame was mine as well. Back when Pathfinder was going through Alpha and Beta testing, we did some of our playing as playtesting with an emphasis on figuring out the rules and following the book. I did not make it clear enough that once the rules came out, we were now playing a different style of game. Also, I allowed arguments without specifically reminding everyone to bring it up later. Sometimes you need to say this stuff out loud and/or print it out, rather then relying on social cues or your perception of "common sense".
EDIT2:vvv Jurassic Pratt - It sounds like you have a really high level of trust with your players. I would love to play/GM at a table like yours! vvv
|
|
With the eel, I don't see anything wrong with having it out of its lair, whatever the reason.
Your second example however, is IMHO a valid example of just plain bad Game Mastering.
That said, even though the GM handled that encounter badly, I still contend that altering encounters (if not the entire adventure) is something a GM can do without player knowledge or consent.
|
|
Ah I think you misunderstood the eel example. It was still located at its den. It just decided to charge past all of us actually near its den to attack the lone caster at the surface of the water.
That's some serious thinking for a territorial creature of low intelligence. We failed to identify it, so we just assumed it was an intelligent magic beast of some sort in the moment. Definitely didn't make sense for an eel though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. It is sometimes appropriate.
I swear some of my players actually enjoy arguing with me. I don't enjoy it very much, but they're not obnoxious about it. For some people 'playing the system' is part (not all, I hope) of their fun. So they're having fun and unless it prevents me from having fun, that's a good.
Luckily, they're not usually belligerent about it if they're wrong, and we're all aware of and abide by the golden rule of Pathfinder and associated games.
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
The GM has final say, the rules are a guideline.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If i make a mistake i usually like to be told. Though HOW you tell me is important.
|
|
Definitely didn't make sense for an eel though.
Agreed... Another fine example of bad game mastering.
But my point was in response to you saying that you expected "to very much follow the AP"
I will concede that if the GM and Players agree before-hand that this or that adventure/AP/or what have you is to be explicitly run as written, then it IS in-fact the game master's responsibility to do just that.
But, and I know this is totally anecdotal, that is not normally how most tables (that I have seen anyway) work, even if the name of the adventure is known by the players before-hand.
But again, that is just in my experience.
YMMV... :-D
|
|
Definitely didn't make sense for an eel though.Agreed... Another fine example of bad game mastering.
But my point was in response to you saying that you expected "to very much follow the AP"
I will concede that if the GM and Players agree before-hand that this or that adventure/AP/or what have you is to be explicitly run as written, then it IS in-fact the game master's responsibility to do just that.
But, and I know this is totally anecdotal, that is not normally how most tables (that I have seen anyway) work, even if the name of the adventure is known by the players before-hand.
But again, that is just in my experience.
YMMV... :-D
I guess I should've started with the fact that he told us that he was a by the book GM and would run as such during session 0 :)
Anyways, I won't derail the thread any further with regards to that game. Cheers all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to limit arguing during the game. I usually will give someone one "but actually.." or whatever, and if you can produce a rule pretty quick then by all means do so and we'll adjust as we can.
Otherwise, I'm moving on and not haggling over a +1 here or there. Unless it is a matter of the character dying or living we'll look it up afterwards and make notes on how not to make the same mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ and I have been respectful at tables we've been at playing under each other as GM, pointing out things that might need to be addressed.
No one is perfect, and sometimes a GM can use a polite, subtle, gentle reminder that they may have missed something.
PARTICULARLY when all parties are becoming fatigued from an extended play session with a lot of 'moving parts'.
But an outright direspectful "No, f*** you, you don't know the rules" sort of response from a player will get said player bounced from my table quicker than my dice rolling on the table.
First of all, relevant comic.
What do you guys think? Obviously being an obnoxious prat until you get your way is not cool. But is a polite "I'm not sure it works that way" permissible in your group? Or should disagreements between players and GMs always happen between sessions and away from the table?
So when I run, I like to designate one player as my rules consigliere.
Someone in there so when something comes up in play, I can turn to and go "I dont remember...does that sound right?" or someone who can look up the rule within a very short time and clarify. Sometimes it's me looking up a rule with one of the two iPad apps I use. But for the most part I dont have a problem with a rule being questioned, it's the WAY that it's questioned that I'll have issues with. I have almost no tolerance for people with no social skills or who dont know how to talk to other people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when I run, I like to designate one player as my rules consigliere.
At my table we call this guy the "Justiciar of Rules."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, there are two more or less common arguments:
1. "X happens." - "But according to rules, Y should happen!"
If I misremembered a rule and can be proven wrong immediatly, I apologize and change the outcome ("You were right, charge does not add +2 to damage, sorry!").
If there is no way to verify quickly I pick the ruling I find more logical and we'll look it up later, at least if it's not a big deal ("I'm not sure about that, but I can't find the damn rule right now...let's just go with me remembering it does +2 to damage and look it up later, okay? You are at 40 hp, you'll be fine.")
And sometimes I'll answer "I know what the rules say. Some rules are changed for this encounter. *shark grin*". NOT in the "I have decided to change the rules" sense, but more in the "This encounter has got a feat that gives him +2 damage on a charge" sense. Sometimes I'll elaborate, sometimes my players get the hint ("I don't have to roll against fear. I'm a paladin." - "Believe me, you do have to roll." - "But...that means...CRAP.)
2. "X happens." - "That's illogical, Y should happen!"
Sometimes something happens in the world that seems illogical to players. Maybe a NPC reacted a certain way, maybe the PCs are unable to do something they should obviously be able to do. With my group, this usually leads to a short argument and me reconsidering ("You are right, you just saved his son, it wouldn't make much sense for him to treat you like this..."), me standing my ground and telling them why ("You simply can't collapse this tunnel by simply attacking the struts! You lack tools and besides, nobody of your characters knows ANYTHING about mining, so you'd probably collapse the tunnel onto yourselves!") or standing my ground and not telling them why ("This happens. Maybe the baron just has a bad day, maybe something happened or maybe he's just an a&#!%!#...you might find out.").
Luckily, my players have little to no problem with this style of doing things. I'd only have a problem with players who start second-guessing everything I say, which so far has not come up.
One thing to keep in mind about the 2d6 or 3d6 fall damage thing the dm also could of easily added spikes or another 10 ft. I frankly would of suggested. Oh you mean it was 30 ft then?
I'm primary DM with like all my groups so most of the time they assume I'm right except my GF who has to look it up to test me. I always encourage my players to call me out if I do something wrong however. Just don't waste time. Also during game time is not the right place foir philosophical debates about what is a d6?
I like pit traps that don't have spikes
So when a character falls in he or she is like
"Whew, glad there were no spikes."
Then a trap door on the ceiling above opens and spikes fall
this always cracks me up
You sir are evil. I like it.
One of my players took to ALWAYS saying "ummm, actually" when I made rulings. Invariably, he was wrong, taking up time for everyone. Eventually, I put in a rule that he was not allowed to question rulings. It was okay for everyone else. Things worked much more smoothly.
I have only one argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing with the GM: Is it ever appropriate?
Only when they're wrong.
To be fair, a friend of mine tried to GM several times, and alas, while not all his fault, he was ALWAYS wrong. Behind the screen was just not the place for him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have only one argument.UH.. uh.. what would that be?..
Calm, reasoned discourse, natura--HRRRGHHHH!
Gotcha again.
One of my players took to ALWAYS saying "ummm, actually" when I made rulings. Invariably, he was wrong, taking up time for everyone. Eventually, I put in a rule that he was not allowed to question rulings. It was okay for everyone else. Things worked much more smoothly.
My current GM was very much like that when he played in my 3.5/PF crossover campaign. He questioned everything and was always wrong. I had to end one session yelling at him, then he became more manageable. Although he was just as bad when he started GM PF, he horribly misremembered the rules and his "common sense" was such that everyone at the table would just stare at him and just be "WTF, dude?". He got much better as we kept playing, thankfully.
When the GM is wrong about rules, I'll tell him the rules. If he wants to declare a house-rule, I'll let it go; unless it's organized play.
If it's a simple not-debated rule, then I'd present the relevant page opened up in rulebook to make my case. Typically dealing with the combat or spells chapter.
If it's a complicated ruling requiring developer explanation or obscure FAQ or rest of party or GM is arguing about it, I'd still bring it up and state the case, but I don't expect the GM to always be fully convinced and will discuss after the game.
Some issues I had to broach subjects on: how critical hits' damage actually work, what triggers AoOs, action economy issues, helpful touch spells on allies not needing attack rolls.
There was one recent case where no matter what I said, could not convince the GM of something major. Not PF but 5e, where the GM in an "organized play" (quotes because it was in name only, all the house rules and lack of self or online reporting made such a case impossible) setting thought the HP gained from leveling up is vague enough to be interpreted that the Constitution modifier gets multiplied by class level and then added to hit die rolled.
For example, fighter is written as:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + your Constitution modifier
Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level after 1st.
Where he made the case that how the grammar suggests that it's 1d10 + (Constitution modifier per fighter level).
Unfortunately he's also the person that organizes the thing so he got a lot of new players thinking that's how leveling up works. I had to shake my head in befuddled wonder as others nodded along to "WotC's wording is terrible and confusing so we'll go with my interpretation."
I don't get into arguments with GMs about opinions of what's broken or too strong or weak or what should be allowed or not. Waste of time.