Calling a DM on Blatant Rule Unbalancing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Calling a DM on Blatant Rule Unbalancing? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
FruitOfTheShroom
09-11-04, 10:00 AM My DM has the habit of not looking up obscure rules, and instead just wings it. I understand that this is to keep the flow of the game up, but unfortunately, some of the time this leads to either a PC or NPC abusing his "winged" explanation for a rule. Should I confront him about this and be the "rules lawyer" that I never wanted to be? I also DM, and I realize how annoying it can be to look up stats for "random creature x" or find that odd spell's duration that you don't have a CLUE as to where it is when a player pulls it out of it's butt or the campaign calls for it.

Would calling him on it be considered rude or should I let it slide? Very often these rules "make sense" but also interfere with the balance of the game. What's a player to do? (cheesy)
fatal error
09-11-04, 03:11 PM It sounds like his winged ruling continues for the entirety of the campaign, or at least the rest of the session? If that is the case then I have the answer; when someone has nothing to do (I.E. if the PCs are planning their next move) look up the rule and in the future use the official rule in-place of the winged one. Does that make sense/help?
Tevandel Surefacet
09-11-04, 03:32 PM My DM has the habit of not looking up obscure rules, and instead just wings it.

<snip>

I also DM, and I realize how annoying it can be to look up stats for "random creature x" or find that odd spell's duration that you don't have a CLUE as to where it is when a player pulls it out of it's butt or the campaign calls for it.

<snip>

The player has to be able to show the spell they are using in an approved source (i.e., the DM better have seen it before the player trys to use it in game). And the DM had really better be aware of what spells/monsters they are going to use before starting to run.

To answer your question - call him on it. If you are playing D&D you need to use the rules or at least tell the players when you are not - and be consistent, that is part of being the DM.

OTOH he is completely in his rights to say "sorry that's the way we are playing from now on" and you just have to live with it.

OTOOH (on the other other hand) if he is handing out cheese make use of it - if he extends the duration of a spell for an NPC make note of it and learn that spell as soon as you can :D then cast it early and often. :cool: It might make him rethink the snap rule judgements on the fly.
Seraph of Babel
09-12-04, 12:53 PM I DM, I have a player who DM the last campaign. Whenever there is some rules which I overlooked, he'd tell me about it. (Sometimes I actually ask him or ask him to look it up, since he's more familiar rules-wise than I am.) And that's fine. I'm actually pleased for the extra pair of hands.

Just let him know what the book says. But let him decide whether to follow it or to house rule it. Make it clear to him that you wish to help, not to disrupt the game and that you respect his decision to house rule it if it comes to that.
Glak
09-12-04, 02:38 PM A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do.
Gnomish Zombie
09-12-04, 08:30 PM A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do.

I hope you never DMed and never will... I would be too disgusted to even eat your brain, in case I catch something (and I'm a zombie).
Yes, a DM can make a decision on the wing if he's missing an info. Yes, if he hesitates between two solutions he can penalize the player who slowed down the game by taking the least useful one for the player, however he shoudn't blatantly nerf the spell to uselessness unless it's happened so often it's a huge problem.

Now, to the dude who posted the thread
As far as calling the DM on it, it's usualy best to try to limit oneself for these things (though I kinda have a problem doing this), unless the DM shows a pattern of advantaging monsters or when it starts to get out of proportions. Usualy, if you have the time it's better to talk to the DM about it when there is free time (like after the game), and after you found the info you base this on (and double-checked). However, eventually you'll come to a situation where that rule is very important NOW (like the party is close to a TPK and the dm ignores rules that could save you, or when the game is being totaly ruined (read: Challenging encounters all being reduced to nothing) ; These are the cases where you should speak out during a game.

Try to adapt yourself to the DM, as well. Some will not take the input as well as others might. Don't push it too hard on those, especially if they are good DMs and not acting in a way to advantage their "uber-powered and or uber-smart monsters"
Levis
09-13-04, 06:26 AM A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do.

Got to agree, if the player can't be bothered why should the DM?
robertliguori
09-15-04, 09:20 AM Got to agree, if the player can't be bothered why should the DM?
Er..."Okay, my CL is 19th, so that's 19d6 damage on this flame strike..."
"With my ioun stone, I can polymorph into a 16-hitdie dragon and breathe on people!"
"No, magic missle doesn't allow spell resistance."

Hey, if the DM can do it, why can't the players?
starfire311
09-15-04, 09:38 AM A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do.

Exactly in my game the players better know what there spells do, because I have more than enough to worry about and I don't need to be looking up their stuff too.

I hope you never DMed and never will... I would be too disgusted to even eat your brain, in case I catch something (and I'm a zombie).
Yes, a DM can make a decision on the wing if he's missing an info. Yes, if he hesitates between two solutions he can penalize the player who slowed down the game by taking the least useful one for the player, however he shoudn't blatantly nerf the spell to uselessness unless it's happened so often it's a huge problem.

If a player didn't know what their spell did and wouldn't look it up you better believe I am gonna wing it and that palyer won't like the end result of me winging it.
Gedrin
09-15-04, 10:09 AM I wouldn't recomend doing the Rules Lawyer thing in the middle of the game. If you want to stop your fight for everyone and look something up, go ahead, but you can't really fault someone for not remembering that a monster summoned by a PC has Improved Grapple, or the way certain weapons behave underwater (when there's no underwater encounter planned). It's not that the DM has lots to do, he does, but that he's also got to deal with things he didn't plan for.

However, if you're planning on doing something wierd, and you happen to look up the rules on your own while waiting for your line in init, that's fine. I'd be happy as a DM if players did that.

If you find a ruling that you think is not by the book, wait until a game break and then mention it. Most people would be glad to use the by the book rule and will use it from then forward. Don't try to change things up durring an encounter unless it's just absolutely wacky.

In the game I run, I frequently make things up on the fly (do you know the damage a two wheel card deals when it rolls over someone?). If I suspect there's a real rule for it, I'll look it up after the game. Since I send out an email update to the game group between games (we game every 2 weeks), I can make corrections then. However, "on the fly" rules typically stand for the session they are created in.
Shard of Suzail
09-15-04, 10:28 AM One of the nice things about the d20 system is that its pretty huge. You can find books on pretty much everything, from strange classes to specific types of magic or monsters. This has the end result of being too big for the gm to manage all on his own.

However, rather than being a flaw, i see this as a really good thing. More than ever, players are empowered to understand their character abilities in every way. Thus, these days, when i GM, I find that my players know the rules affecting their characters very well and I can leave a lot more of that "number crunching" in their hands.

Trust your players, most of the time, they know what they are doing when it comes to rules and abilities that they have. This speeds up the game no end and gives the players a much needed feeling of responsibility within the game.

There will still be "rules calls" that a GM must make and, with players knowing as much as they do, its usually something pretty obscure. The most common GM tactic for comping with this is to put in place a best fit rule while someone else looks it up for the next time. If it doesnt hurt the game, then sometimes it is fine to simply take a while to look things up.

Wise players, knowing the actions they want to do, look things up ahead of time, again taking responsibility for the game and their part within it.

Most times, best fit rules are replaced by the real thing when it is found, but i have known a few instances where the best fit has been used for so long that it becomes disruptive to make a change over. Using the rules whenever possible is a good thing, but sometimes, convenience and gameplay win out. With these, however, i would suggest that the made up rule only lasts until the next significant break in the campaign. Then things change and the disruption should be small, if any.

***

The power of the GM is an interesting thing. There will be some rules that the GM really dislikes (my usual bugbear being drawing weapons for free when moving). It may be a rule that causes too much debate, or it may be one that seems subject to player abuse. Whatever the reason, there may come a time when a GM simply removes something from his game as an option. Fortunately, and this is something players often forget, many rules are optional. Even things that people take for granted, like prestige classes, can be thrown out the window.

The trick comes in knowing when to use the big stick of rule removal. I usually go the other way and just say "sure, it works, it happens as you say" and rule in the players favour rather than ripping out a rule or option totally. I just note the troublesome ones and gloss over them, passing up any arguments that may occur. I would only remove a rule if I saw no other option.
Steelwill
09-15-04, 02:14 PM I am currently in a similar situation: I DM my own campaign on Firdays, and am a player in one on Saturdays, and I often assist the DM of the Saturday campaign with rules information, as I am more familair with the 3.5 Core rules than he. Its not usually a problem, I let him know about a rule or correct a rule, and the fallout of changing it, and he decides if it should stay or go. Usually however this is done during either "in-game" downtime, or out of session. This way game continuity doesn't suffer, and the rules get more or less corrected and consistant. In general, and this is the advice I give the player's I DM, if there is an issue, PLEASE speak up, we might have to address it after a session, BUT please at least give me the opportunity to address something that is a problem. As a DM I really dislike it when a player has an issue, doesn't speak to me about it, and later just gets mad about it. So I always advocate talking with a DM about an issue...now what happens after that point is between the DM and you, but at least bring it up.

Aside, I recommend the DM be very clear about what source material he wants to use for a campaign, because if all the players run out and buy books he is unfamiliar with and start using feats, spells, classes, whatever, that can be a huge pain for the DM to try to keep up with. The DM should moderate what new materials get introduced into a campaign. As well, any houserules the DM does make, he needs to go over them with his players, and keep it consistant. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can destroy game world consistancy faster than players not knowing what rules work on a day to day basis. My 2 cents, hope it helps.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FruitOfTheShroom 09-11-04, 10:00 AM	My DM has the habit of not looking up obscure rules, and instead just wings it. I understand that this is to keep the flow of the game up, but unfortunately, some of the time this leads to either a PC or NPC abusing his "winged" explanation for a rule. Should I confront him about this and be the "rules lawyer" that I never wanted to be? I also DM, and I realize how annoying it can be to look up stats for "random creature x" or find that odd spell's duration that you don't have a CLUE as to where it is when a player pulls it out of it's butt or the campaign calls for it. Would calling him on it be considered rude or should I let it slide? Very often these rules "make sense" but also interfere with the balance of the game. What's a player to do? (cheesy)
fatal error 09-11-04, 03:11 PM	It sounds like his winged ruling continues for the entirety of the campaign, or at least the rest of the session? If that is the case then I have the answer; when someone has nothing to do (I.E. if the PCs are planning their next move) look up the rule and in the future use the official rule in-place of the winged one. Does that make sense/help?
Tevandel Surefacet 09-11-04, 03:32 PM	My DM has the habit of not looking up obscure rules, and instead just wings it. <snip> I also DM, and I realize how annoying it can be to look up stats for "random creature x" or find that odd spell's duration that you don't have a CLUE as to where it is when a player pulls it out of it's butt or the campaign calls for it. <snip> The player has to be able to show the spell they are using in an approved source (i.e., the DM better have seen it before the player trys to use it in game). And the DM had really better be aware of what spells/monsters they are going to use before starting to run. To answer your question - call him on it. If you are playing D&D you need to use the rules or at least tell the players when you are not - and be consistent, that is part of being the DM. OTOH he is completely in his rights to say "sorry that's the way we are playing from now on" and you just have to live with it. OTOOH (on the other other hand) if he is handing out cheese make use of it - if he extends the duration of a spell for an NPC make note of it and learn that spell as soon as you can :D then cast it early and often. :cool: It might make him rethink the snap rule judgements on the fly.
Seraph of Babel 09-12-04, 12:53 PM	I DM, I have a player who DM the last campaign. Whenever there is some rules which I overlooked, he'd tell me about it. (Sometimes I actually ask him or ask him to look it up, since he's more familiar rules-wise than I am.) And that's fine. I'm actually pleased for the extra pair of hands. Just let him know what the book says. But let him decide whether to follow it or to house rule it. Make it clear to him that you wish to help, not to disrupt the game and that you respect his decision to house rule it if it comes to that.
Glak 09-12-04, 02:38 PM	A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do.
Gnomish Zombie 09-12-04, 08:30 PM	A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do. I hope you never DMed and never will... I would be too disgusted to even eat your brain, in case I catch something (and I'm a zombie). Yes, a DM can make a decision on the wing if he's missing an info. Yes, if he hesitates between two solutions he can penalize the player who slowed down the game by taking the least useful one for the player, however he shoudn't blatantly nerf the spell to uselessness unless it's happened so often it's a huge problem. Now, to the dude who posted the thread As far as calling the DM on it, it's usualy best to try to limit oneself for these things (though I kinda have a problem doing this), unless the DM shows a pattern of advantaging monsters or when it starts to get out of proportions. Usualy, if you have the time it's better to talk to the DM about it when there is free time (like after the game), and after you found the info you base this on (and double-checked). However, eventually you'll come to a situation where that rule is very important NOW (like the party is close to a TPK and the dm ignores rules that could save you, or when the game is being totaly ruined (read: Challenging encounters all being reduced to nothing) ; These are the cases where you should speak out during a game. Try to adapt yourself to the DM, as well. Some will not take the input as well as others might. Don't push it too hard on those, especially if they are good DMs and not acting in a way to advantage their "uber-powered and or uber-smart monsters"
Levis 09-13-04, 06:26 AM	A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do. Got to agree, if the player can't be bothered why should the DM?
robertliguori 09-15-04, 09:20 AM	Got to agree, if the player can't be bothered why should the DM? Er..."Okay, my CL is 19th, so that's 19d6 damage on this flame strike..." "With my ioun stone, I can polymorph into a 16-hitdie dragon and breathe on people!" "No, magic missle doesn't allow spell resistance." Hey, if the DM can do it, why can't the players?
starfire311 09-15-04, 09:38 AM	A player's spell duration? If the player doesn't know the duration is as short as you can reasonably make it. Haste?... hmm duration is one round! Fireball? Hmm... 1d8 damage per three levels. If the player complains well he should be the one that knows his spells. It isn't the DM's problem; he has enough to do. Exactly in my game the players better know what there spells do, because I have more than enough to worry about and I don't need to be looking up their stuff too. I hope you never DMed and never will... I would be too disgusted to even eat your brain, in case I catch something (and I'm a zombie). Yes, a DM can make a decision on the wing if he's missing an info. Yes, if he hesitates between two solutions he can penalize the player who slowed down the game by taking the least useful one for the player, however he shoudn't blatantly nerf the spell to uselessness unless it's happened so often it's a huge problem. If a player didn't know what their spell did and wouldn't look it up you better believe I am gonna wing it and that palyer won't like the end result of me winging it.
Gedrin 09-15-04, 10:09 AM	I wouldn't recomend doing the Rules Lawyer thing in the middle of the game. If you want to stop your fight for everyone and look something up, go ahead, but you can't really fault someone for not remembering that a monster summoned by a PC has Improved Grapple, or the way certain weapons behave underwater (when there's no underwater encounter planned). It's not that the DM has lots to do, he does, but that he's also got to deal with things he didn't plan for. However, if you're planning on doing something wierd, and you happen to look up the rules on your own while waiting for your line in init, that's fine. I'd be happy as a DM if players did that. If you find a ruling that you think is not by the book, wait until a game break and then mention it. Most people would be glad to use the by the book rule and will use it from then forward. Don't try to change things up durring an encounter unless it's just absolutely wacky. In the game I run, I frequently make things up on the fly (do you know the damage a two wheel card deals when it rolls over someone?). If I suspect there's a real rule for it, I'll look it up after the game. Since I send out an email update to the game group between games (we game every 2 weeks), I can make corrections then. However, "on the fly" rules typically stand for the session they are created in.
Shard of Suzail 09-15-04, 10:28 AM	One of the nice things about the d20 system is that its pretty huge. You can find books on pretty much everything, from strange classes to specific types of magic or monsters. This has the end result of being too big for the gm to manage all on his own. However, rather than being a flaw, i see this as a really good thing. More than ever, players are empowered to understand their character abilities in every way. Thus, these days, when i GM, I find that my players know the rules affecting their characters very well and I can leave a lot more of that "number crunching" in their hands. Trust your players, most of the time, they know what they are doing when it comes to rules and abilities that they have. This speeds up the game no end and gives the players a much needed feeling of responsibility within the game. There will still be "rules calls" that a GM must make and, with players knowing as much as they do, its usually something pretty obscure. The most common GM tactic for comping with this is to put in place a best fit rule while someone else looks it up for the next time. If it doesnt hurt the game, then sometimes it is fine to simply take a while to look things up. Wise players, knowing the actions they want to do, look things up ahead of time, again taking responsibility for the game and their part within it. Most times, best fit rules are replaced by the real thing when it is found, but i have known a few instances where the best fit has been used for so long that it becomes disruptive to make a change over. Using the rules whenever possible is a good thing, but sometimes, convenience and gameplay win out. With these, however, i would suggest that the made up rule only lasts until the next significant break in the campaign. Then things change and the disruption should be small, if any. *** The power of the GM is an interesting thing. There will be some rules that the GM really dislikes (my usual bugbear being drawing weapons for free when moving). It may be a rule that causes too much debate, or it may be one that seems subject to player abuse. Whatever the reason, there may come a time when a GM simply removes something from his game as an option. Fortunately, and this is something players often forget, many rules are optional. Even things that people take for granted, like prestige classes, can be thrown out the window. The trick comes in knowing when to use the big stick of rule removal. I usually go the other way and just say "sure, it works, it happens as you say" and rule in the players favour rather than ripping out a rule or option totally. I just note the troublesome ones and gloss over them, passing up any arguments that may occur. I would only remove a rule if I saw no other option.
Steelwill 09-15-04, 02:14 PM	I am currently in a similar situation: I DM my own campaign on Firdays, and am a player in one on Saturdays, and I often assist the DM of the Saturday campaign with rules information, as I am more familair with the 3.5 Core rules than he. Its not usually a problem, I let him know about a rule or correct a rule, and the fallout of changing it, and he decides if it should stay or go. Usually however this is done during either "in-game" downtime, or out of session. This way game continuity doesn't suffer, and the rules get more or less corrected and consistant. In general, and this is the advice I give the player's I DM, if there is an issue, PLEASE speak up, we might have to address it after a session, BUT please at least give me the opportunity to address something that is a problem. As a DM I really dislike it when a player has an issue, doesn't speak to me about it, and later just gets mad about it. So I always advocate talking with a DM about an issue...now what happens after that point is between the DM and you, but at least bring it up. Aside, I recommend the DM be very clear about what source material he wants to use for a campaign, because if all the players run out and buy books he is unfamiliar with and start using feats, spells, classes, whatever, that can be a huge pain for the DM to try to keep up with. The DM should moderate what new materials get introduced into a campaign. As well, any houserules the DM does make, he needs to go over them with his players, and keep it consistant. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can destroy game world consistancy faster than players not knowing what rules work on a day to day basis. My 2 cents, hope it helps.