I Will Choose a Path That’s Clear
Hold onto your haloes and apply your celestial creature templates, because Handbook-World finally has a named deity! Last month we asked our Quest Givers on the Handbook of Heroes Patreon to name Paladin’s big blue goddess. With a divine phonebook’s worth of contenders in the tournament brackets, we then put our sacrosanct sobriquets to the test in a head-to-head battle for the future of the pantheon! You can check out the full results from the poll (and all the ridiculous names) right here. But for now, it is my great pleasure to formally introduce Lady Celestial to the comic! May Her Blue Bodaciousness garner all the worship it so richly deserves.
Truth be told, I could use a goddess’s help right now. That’s because we find ourselves swimming in deep waters for today’s rant. After all, books have been written on the subject of agency in games. Some of us have built academic careers trying to make sense out of railroads and sandboxes and questions of authorship. And that’s to say nothing of the everyday poetics of gamemastering.
Uncertainties and philosophical differences of opinion abound. For example, how much input should your players have into your game world? Are quantum ogres allowed? Who gets to be right if there’s a rules dispute at the table? Can players insert new deities into your pantheon or draw new nations onto your map? (Longtime readers may recall that I did exactly that with my gold-dragon-lawyer-paladin.)
When you’re trying to answer these questions, it’s important to remember that you’re dealing with design. And in design, there are seldom “correct” answers. What’s more important is being able to articulate your rationale. After all, our old pal Rule 0 may be widely cited, but even that is a convention rather than an immutable law. For example, what happens if you’re running a GM-less game? What if you’ve got a co-GM? Or maybe you appointed a more experienced “justiciar of rules” amongst your players to offer system advice? The task before us then is to recognize the division of narrative responsibility, and then to apply it in practice.
This mess ain’t easy. Narrative-by-committee is seldom straightforward. And that’s why, for today’s discussion, I thought it might be smart to start with the fundamentals. To wit: Why is Rule 0 (i.e. “the Game Master is always right”) an important convention? And can you think of a scenario where you would be willing to break that convention? Help us figure out scenarios where the game master is wrong down in the comments!
ARE YOU A ROLL20 ADDICT? Are you tired of googling endlessly for the perfect tokens? Then have we got a Patreon tier for you! As a card-carrying Familiar, you’ll receive a weekly downloadable Roll20 Token to use in your own online games, as well as access to all of our previously posted Tokens. It’s like your own personal NPC codex!
Rule 0 is important because not every group can reach consensus. You need someone who can give the swing vote in a deadlock, who can overrule the yodeling rules-lawyer. A committee we gamers may be, but every committee needs a chair person.
And rule 0 goes out the window when your GM is the kind of douche to throw around falling horse-curse which spawned Old Man Henderson. As awesome as the Old Man was, he was spawned to counter a GM who thought he could play god and acted like a tyrant. That dookie don’t fly.
In closing: congrats to Lady Celestial on getting her name. I’m sure she’ll figure out the ideal balance between free will and plot, law and chaos, one of these … centuries? (*ducks lightning bolt*)
Also? Laurel made Lady Celestial look GLORIOUS.
I think “the tyrant” is the first and most obvious instance where we’d want to imagine a different division of responsibility. It makes me wonder if there are constructive examples you’d want from the outset rather than the default “we have to react to a negative situation” example here.
Except there is no “different division of authority” that would work. Tyrants must either find groups that enjoy Tyrants (or abuse a group of Stockholm Syndromed Players), learn to not be Tyrants, or be forever alone.
But then Lady Celestial accidentally added an extra ingredient: Grognards!
The true meaning of blasphemy:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/boredom
Are her freckles little facial constellations? Do freckles symbolize the divine-blooded in her world?
Yes and sure, why not?
…
I’m guessing Ninja is a lower back freckle in the divine tramp stamp region.
I am not really sure that “The GM is always right” *is* an important convention. It can get a little unhealthy at times and can easily end up pushing the GM to lose sight of what really matters if they actually takes it seriously.
I prefer the variant put before it of “above all else, everybody have fun” (through with fun standing in for a more nebulous get the thing out of the game that the social contract says is the point of it. A tragedy might not be “fun” strictly speaking, cathartic and at some level satisfying but not really fun, but if it’s what a given group is as after then that’s perfectly allright).
A very important thing to note there is that “everyone” includes the GM (and any person with a GM-like role).
As a bit of a musing: I think that what really matters here is consensus building, that everyone is on the same page with respect to how things “should” go and about what sort of arguing for/presenting preferences are reasonable and when it’s time to move on.
It can be useful to empower the GM to make the call for when it’s time for the latter, but we shouldn’t lose sight of this being for the groups interest in not getting bogged down in the weeds rather than because our opinion as GM’s being inherently superior.
Another musing: the degree of reasonable GM authority should probably also vary based on the factors of the local community.
It’s probably fair to expect less compromise in situations with a lot of both where a GM could say “I want to run this specific sort of game” and people could then join or not based on whether that fits their interest. Contrasting with situations where there’s a specific group and both players and GM want to play specifically with each other where more compromise might be needed to ensure they all enjoy themselves.
> I prefer the variant put before it of “above all else, everybody have fun”
I’ve heard that referenced as “the golden rule” rather than “rule zero.” I’m not sure where the nomenclature would even be codified though.
> think that what really matters here is consensus building
I think the term “social contract” comes up here. That mess often goes unspoken, which is part of what we’re trying to remedy in today’s comments section. 🙂
Re: Players adding things: Some systems support this. Mutants and Masterminds 3E and FATE among others. Costs them a resource to do so, but they can. And the system is built around them being able to.
Meanwhile, others aren’t built around it, and they can’t. And it works that way. Really, I think that’s just a system’s style thing.
As for Quantum Ogres… if you’re just pulling from a Bestiary, then IMO it should be a different random encounter for the terrain. But an adversary that’s actively seeking out signs and following them for an attack… that one should be based on hiding tracks and other stealth things, rather than which path they take. Unless the encounter has an in-universe reason to not be random.
Though, regarding Quantum Ogres… perhaps better would be the issue of the plot following the paths, with Ogres on both paths, anyway. Do you go North to the city of thieves for that plot, or east to the pirate port for more martial combat? And then after fighting the Ogre to get to one city, you can take a direct road with a different encounter entirely.
But then, I’d rather they just have to explore the entire field, so they’ll get to the ogre eventually, no point in forcing things. Stuff like keys and MacGuffins hidden all across the dungeon.
So, in summary: I’m okayish with Quantum enemies, though IMO random encounters don’t really count, and they’re the big reason I’m okayish with them. The big reason other than enemies watching and counter-moving, that is. Otherwise, I say players should have enough agency to make changes to the plot.
In my group (mostly defunct, sadly), we sometimes referred to “fronts” or how organizations would act under various broad circumstances absent player intervention.
I’ve only dipped my toe into a few PbtA games, but my understanding is that this is where the “fronts” terminology comes from. It lends itself to an improvisational rather than a plot-points style of play, as players are expected to interrupt and influence those evil mechanizations at ever turn.
*looks up from my lovingly crafted random encounter tables*
You guys are using quantum enemies?
Seriously though, not a fan of them. If there’s a fork in the road, there should be significant differences between paths. One’s faster but carries a greater likelihood of random encounters, or one has the lair of the woods witch while the other is kobold territory, etc. Simple encounters like “ogre” should be rolled on an encounter table, or at the very least you should pretend to roll so the players think that’s what you’re doing.
Serious question: Do you ever reroll on the random encounter table?
Rule 0 is like the infallibility of the pope. It’s a reserve power that can be used to resolve an argument that would otherwise disrupt the game. It does not apply in matters of taste (i.e. the DM cannot decide what is “fun”), and it does not apply in matters of rules-as-written (i.e. the DM cannot decide what the rules say). The DM can decide what we’re doing right now, in the interest of getting on with it. (The DM is obviously still a participant and gets a say in all these things, they just can’t Rule 0 their way out of arguments willy-nilly.)
I think the ideal way to handle agency is to treat everyone as “DM” of their own domain. Players run their characters, cohorts, companions, properties, etcetera with authority, and the DM runs the world with authority. For example, instead of saying “I cast hold monster on the ogre”, a player would tell the DM to roll a save for that ogre, and the DM wouldn’t know what was going on anymore than a player would if the situation were reversed.
Of course, to run a game like that, you’d need everyone to trust everyone else’s fair and accurate application of the rules (in the example above, nobody but the player would know whether they actually had hold monster prepared, or whether the save DC was set correctly), which is a steep requirement, but it’s a good baseline.
I dunno. I have troubles not telling your GM what you’re casting. It makes it hard for me to describe the ogre’s limbs beginning to lock up before, with a mighty bellow, the spell breaks apart like burst chains as the ogre shrugs out of the magic.
The anticlimactic, “OK, nothing happens. Pass turn,” always feels like a wasted opportunity to me, as the rest of the table has no grasp of what just happened.
It would be the player who describes the ogre’s limbs locking up, because the player is acting as DM for the purpose of their own actions. The purpose of running a game like this is that the player has full narrative control over the description of the spell.
“… the DM wouldn’t know what was going on anymore than a player would if the situation were reversed.”
Ah, wut? Does your GM not telling you what spell you’re resisting? that’s a bit of a dick move. Always be upfront with why the PCs are rolling dice, especially if they have reroll mechanics they can emply.
In 3.5, you can tell what spell is being cast (with Spellcraft) and I think most people run the game as “if you make the save, you know what you just resisted”, but in general, you do not automatically know what spell you’re saving against. Certainly an ogre without ranks in Spellcraft doesn’t know that what they’re feeling is the effect of “hold monster”.
Not a fan of false choices. The forks in the road may both lead to the same destination, but they should result in different journeys.
Our current GM is very good at that… while certain encounters may be inevitable, their timing and details are very dependent on player choices. It probably helps that he’s the kind of GM who has a lot of different elements going on at once, so can shift things around to prioritise one element or another based on what the PCs do.
What’s the difference between a “false choice” and an “inevitable” encounter?
I dunno about Delgarde, but for me the difference is in how much lying is done to the Players.
Inevitable Encounter: No lies, they simply can’t avoid no matter what they do.
False choice: The GM lies about the possibility of avoidance.
The point is that the timing and details are dependent on player choices. It might be inevitable that the players will have a faceoff with the villain’s chief henchman, but player decisions will change the nature of that encounter… it might be earlier or later, it might be on friendly or hostile ground, etc.
It’s like I said in the first paragraph — the forks in the road may eventually bring the players to the same place, but they should result in different journeys to get there. The false choice is when there’s really just one road, rendering the choice illusory… you don’t actually have any agency, but the GM is deceiving you into believing otherwise.
As I said, not a fan. If the GM needs to do a bit of railroading for plot reasons, just be open about it… it’s much healthier for the game than to try to make things happen without player cooperation.
As for the question of players introducing “facts” into the setting… I’m happy when players can *propose* facts for approval of the GM and other players… that’s fine, most reasonable players and GMs already do that to some degree without any rules support. It helps share the creative burden, and gives players the ability to set up elements for their characters to interact with. Collaborative world-building is great.
Less keen on systems where players can do so unilaterally… I guess it can work with the right game and the right players, but it’s fraught with potential angst compared to a more collaborative approach.
One of the reasons my current game has stalled is because of player agency. One player sees the world as being too open with too many options, and is paralyzed by indecision. Another player sees the plot as too railroaded and that their actions haven’t had any effect on anything. The exact same plot! Too wide and too narrow at the same time! I’m in a rut about what to do about it.
If the players aren’t having fun, then the DM clearly isn’t in the right. As with most aspects of the game, clear communication is key. I think there are some conversations I need to have that are long overdue.
> If the players aren’t having fun, then the DM clearly isn’t in the right.
Remember that it’s possible for players to be wrong as well. Sure it’s your goal to help everybody have a good time, but it takes a village to raise an adventure. Mismatched expectations is an everybody problem.
I’m of two minds on this one.
-) On the one hand, our game night crew essentially walked away from one long-running campaign (following a notoriously rail-roaded TPK) rather than confront the DM responsible. We all just made new characters, started a new campaign world, and never spoke of it again as a group.
-) On the other hand, our groups wholeheartedly embrace the system of victory points (action points, chaos currency, etc.) to have some player agency over the narrative. I’ve seen nights where the whole table shoved their remaining chits en masse toward the GM to ensure or avert a particular outcome.
My group had great fun tossing around the “bennies” of Savage Worlds. We wound up tossing out a boatload to invent a “universal sign for ‘believer in need of aid'” during a foot chase. A bunch of nearby shaolin monks red-rovered the dudes pursuing us. Good times.
“How much input should your players have into your game world?”
They create characters within it.
“Are quantum ogres allowed?”
No.
“Who gets to be right if there’s a rules dispute at the table?”
The rulebook.
“Can players insert new deities into your pantheon?”
No.
“Or draw new nations onto your map?”
No.
“Why is Rule 0 (i.e. “the Game Master is always right”) an important convention?”
Because every game done by committee I’ve ever seen has collapsed in on itself amid player arguments.
“And can you think of a scenario where you would be willing to break that convention?”
I’ve seen a relatively inexperienced DM ask an experienced player to be their backup. In that situation, the rule changes to “The appointed backup DM is always right”. The appointed backup DM can and should contradict the DM when a poor call is made, and help the main DM learn to make good calls.
> They create characters within it.
Do those characters exist in isolation? Or do they have NPCs in their backstory? Organizations that they belong to? Families and cultures and quaint mountain towns where they come from?
The NPCs in their backstories are also characters. Those are fine.
Organizations, families, and quaint mountain towns? Sure. Cultures and kingdoms? No. They can work within the overall setting for major things like that.
But I wanna play a samurai!
https://tinyurl.com/yckh8ssx
😛
Huh. I always understood Rule 0 to be primarily about the GM versus the rulebook (giving the GM the flexibility to do what must be done), rather than the GM versus the players. As a practical matter, though, the GM IS the ultimate rules authority, because they are the ones who have to put the ruling into practice. The other players don’t know what the exact monster statistics are and whatnot, so only the GM knows the information needed to apply the rules to a given situation.
As a corollary, the GM is not a completely unaccountable authority – the players do have the right to leave the game at any time. If the GM is a dictator, they are essentially an elected dictator who can be “voted out” if things go too far. This, combined with the fact that most GMs are good people who want everyone to have fun, means that GMs are usually incentivized to take the players’ opinions on a dispute into account, especially if the group of players have come to a consensus.
> the players do have the right to leave the game at any time
“I pick up my ball and go home” is the second instance (after “the tyrant GM”) where we can imagine a different division of responsibility. It’s like a vote of no confidence in a political system.
While a tyrannical GM obviously isn’t going to keep you chained to a table and force you to continue playing (though I would like to see that zero budget horror movie), it makes me wonder if there’s some kind of middle step to take before walking away? What would that less-drastic measure look like? And how could we design it into the social contract of the game?
Tyrant GM won;t chain the Players to the table”
There is the story of the South American death squad that kidnapped a GM to run their games… so the reverse has occurred (maybe).
> “it makes me wonder if there’s some kind of middle step to take before walking away?”
Obviously, players quitting should be a last resort. It is a nuclear option that isn’t fun for anyone involved, but it is the primary source of coercive power that players have (assuming that they lack other forms of influence from non-game social relationships with the GM). “Talk with the GM about your concerns” should come well before that, especially if the whole group shares those concerns. I think it’s already in the standard social contract that both sides should be taking the others’ concerns into account – after all, everyone is on the same team and has (or is supposed to have) the same collective goal.
But if adversarial relationships form, the threat of a strike or a vote of no confidence has coercive power, even if it never goes forward.
As someone who has lost characters because the GM didn´t understand the rules, didn´t care about the rules and just made shit up as they went along, my GM policy is that if I get something wrong, then the players should correct me. Because I see the rules as being not only the common ground that players and GMs work from, but also as a “legal” protection for both. My players don´t blame me when they die to me following the rules and they are allowed to question me should I do something that is out of line with the expected system.
That said, this is also something I do at my table, with the understanding that when I say we are moving on, then we are moving on. Because I have also seen a table spend 2 hours debating the rules, and nobody got time for that.
As for adding stuff to the game, I am all for it. As long as it is GM approved. There are even systems that includes several rules for it, such as Burning Wheel. I think including the players in the world building process can also help them get a better connection to the world (Of course this also depends on the group, I know some people who would immediately try to use this for their own gain).
But I think that for matters of history or deities, player input can be very valuable. I recently tried Pathfinder 2nd edition, and I included something inspired by the Stream “Rotgrind” where players can use Hero Points to make a narrative declaration of some sort. Which the players took to pretty well.
The “GM approved” caveat is interesting. Players can propose, but when it comes to creating story elements, the GM has veto power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUksDJCijw&t=923s
Aside from the knee-jerk of “that’s a terrible idea,” what would it look like if we removed a GM’s veto power? Or limited it somehow? Or farmed it out to other players?
I believe that there are games that do do that. While I haven´t got a hold of a copy, it is my understanding that the players have complete control over the in world religion in “Dogs in the Vineyard”, and the GM is not allowed to veto their ideas.
For me personally, the Veto power mainly comes up if it is game breaking, story breaking or gross/bad. Luckily I haven´t had to deal with the last one yet, but I find policing such things often falls on the shoulders of the GM.
I do like Burning Wheels concept of Circles and Wises. Circles are the various social circles you are connected to, and are gained through character creation. So someone born an orphan, who grew up a guild apprentice, before becoming a soldier will have circles in “Low Society”, “Citizens” and “Army”. This allows the player to make up a character that is relevant for the situation at hand, and then roll to see if they are there. A failure allows the GM to decide if the character isn´t there, doesn´t exist is there but with a twist or that the player forgot that their last meeting didn´t end on good terms. The difficulty is based around the importance and relevance of the NPC.
Wises is a type of skill that covers all sort of things a character might have expertise in. A barkeeper might be Gossip-Wise, a Lady might be Husband-Wise and a Sailor Sea-Wise. Anyone with a wise can attempt to make a lore declaration that is relevant for the wise. On a success, it is true, on a failure it might be false (But you think it is true) or it might be somewhat true, but not exactly how you think it is.
I personally quite like the concept, because I think it can help make the players more involved in the world-building of the setting, as well as allow them to create some personal lore, without having to write out an overly detailed background. Such as an old friend from their street-rat days or old maritime traditions.
Love the Rush reference, I chuckled.
The GM is right when there is no justification for the solution within the realm of the character’s considerations. If the characters have no way of conceiving of nuclear shenanigans, no nukes.
The GM is wrong when the solution utilizes unrecognized character growth and development from actual gameplay so long as it does not break the setting. If a wacky solution gets a fast “no” from the GM but has reasonable justification, it’s good.
So like, if the GM gets to use certain magic that isn’t mechanically supported (many undead can’t be created using game rules), then research and/or the right factors can bring about spontaneous and/or prepared never-before-seen magic. It just needs to be within reason.
> Love the Rush reference, I chuckled.
As a fellow priest of The Temples Of Syrinx, I salute you!
> It just needs to be within reason.
Now this is where we can get into trouble. What are the limits of “within reason?” For example, suppose I want to run one of those classic “I am a deposed god put into the body of this 1st level adventurer” PCs. Who gets to decide if that’s allowed?
All rules ultimately depend on one thing: What is the table going for.
If the table is full masochistic lab weasels who think that monsters having 20 levels on them on average is a balanced and fair encounter, then you want The Tyrant.
If you want a really easy fluffy narrative experience, you probably want The Camp Counselor. Remember, if things get too stressful, we can hug it out!
Odds are you fall somewhere between those two extremes, so you’re more after some variant of The Executive. Ultimately, somebody needs to make some sort of decision or ruling else we all just argue whatever it is forever. We don’t collectively have a much better mechanism for than simply appointing someone we trust to MAKE said decision.
Ultimately though… choosing to make a collective decision is still Rule 0.
> The Tyrant
> The Camps Counselor
> The Executive
I love these and want there to be more of them. Are you getting them from somewhere? And if not, could you please make more up for me?
> We don’t collectively have a much better mechanism for than simply appointing someone we trust to MAKE said decision.
What if we draw on of our competing ideas from a hat? What if democratic voting was a mechanic? What if we used audience participation as a randomizer? Or took turns making close rules calls?
We’re straying pretty far from “a normal game of D&D” here, but playing with agency and authority always struck me as a fun way to stretch the boundaries of what an RPG could look like.
> The Tyrant
> The Camps Counselor
> The Executive
Sounds like a something Robin Laws wrote.
> The Tyrant
> The Camps Counselor
> The Executive
Sounds like something Robin Laws wrote.
I made them up, but it isn’t hard to see how. I’ve never heard of Robin Laws, but it’s not like two people can’t independently create the same thing. I have a couple more. Real quick though, I said we don’t have a ‘much’ better solution-ideas out of a hat can lead to some very strange things. It also shelves the game for 10-20 minutes, which is a no go at my table.
Before we get into it, these semi-broad generalizations, and I feel like several of them are more like parts than wholes.
You have the Hero/Villain GM-they’re really sort of the same. Just one creates a ‘plot change’ for the better and one for the worse as the situations unfold. “The heroes come back to life!” or **intense scribbling** “FOOLS YOU HAVE FALLEN RIGHT INTO MY TRAP WHICH I HAD PLANNED ALL ALONG!”
There’s The Encyclopedia, who not only owns every book ever released, but actually knows them well enough that you can’t even challenge them reliably on what is and is not BS. We normally think of this person as a player (you know, THAT one), but these people also GM.
There’s The Writer. The Writer is here to tell you story time. And you are going to listen. May or may not be up on game mechanics, may or may not avoid crunch… but everything is in service to their story. The Writer mixed with the Camp Counselor probably makes for a great Exalted GM.
I consider myself The Conductor; more in the trains sense than the symphony sense, though with my penchant for art there is some of that. It’s my responsibility to make sure game night works for everyone involved and also that it runs smoothly. The emphasis is more on the game session as a whole than it is necessarily the story, mechanics, and game systems. This definitely leads to some inflexibility though, which I struggle with anyway on the spectrum.
I’m sure there are appropriately dozens of these that deal with both GM style and let’s call it ‘level of executive tyranny.’ It would make a fascinating study-on GM’s of course, though I would really love to see it done on actual CEO’s and other actual leaders in place of those glowing biographies we always see.
Seems I had a lot to say before this point, but no that I’m down here all I can say is:
As for your questions: Depends on the group. In some cases Rule 0 is inviolate, in others it’s tossed, in others Rule 0 means “RAW”. Some groups don’t mind Quantum Ogres, some hate the idea. Some love the rails, other jump them at first sight. In some groups the whole world is collab, in some it’s writ on stones by a harsh and unforgiving GM.
To me Rule 0 is “The GM is the final arbiter of the rules” and it is inviolate at my table. Sometimes world lore is open to collabing, sometimes it’s hard set.
Now we need Evil to show up 🙂
It’s not that the game master is always right, they always have final say. You can always make a reasonable effort to get them to change their mind by convincing them their idea isn’t right.
i think rule zero is fine most of the time but if a dm is in a situation where the party is 100% against his ruling maybe then it’s time to reconsider. i havent personally come across this much though. more likely a player is trying to get the dm to bend or break a rule for them than not and whichever ruling they have is fine- cant argue with upholding the rules or otherwise you got your way.
ps- nice rush reference
Either I’m running in an established setting and the most you can weasel into the lore is some new but relatively unimportant village, or it’s a homebrew setting and I let folks introduce locations… through session 0 backstory alone.
I can’t just adjust my internal knowledge of my own setting to account for entire new nations on the fly.
Personally, I think it’s important to accept the GM is wrong if the group feels a decision makes them have less fun. Fun may have to be debated, but my Rule 0 is that we are all at the table to have fun and it is everyone’s responsibility to look out for everyone’s fun.
Rule 0 of the GM having final say is important as a way to avoid protracted arguments and detracting from game play. If a rule is unclear or no one is sure on what the rule is for something, the GM has to make a judgment call.
However, it’s important that the GM be consistent and (more or less) fair in their judgment, otherwise it undermines the entire point of the GM as moderator.
I listen to a few Actual Play podcasts for Pathfinder and D&D 5e: The Glass Cannon Podcast, Find the Path Podcast, Hideous Laughter Podcast, and of course Critical Role. For most of these, the DM/GM has a pretty solid grip on the rules and make consistent and fair rulings that leaves everyone satisfied. However, one of them has a GM who is not exactly the best with the rules and tends to view the role of GM as antagonistic to the players rather than a cultivator of the story. This leads to lots of character death, bad feelings in online forums, and a lot more unnecessary struggle on part of the players than in other actual plays. In other words, Rule 0 doesn’t work if people aren’t having fun.
Games are almost like board meetings or the like. Everyone has kinda a vote. Sure, the dm counts for two and he’s got veto power, but if everyone else votes for something, it should be generly considered that whatever is decided should happen. As for the when thr DM is wrong… when the continuity is changed just cause (especially when it changes the situation one is currently in.) One of my first campaigns, I got a cursed ring that turned me from a man into a woman. Eventually got me and the ring decursed, and it became a magic item that healed me to full when I pit it on (in exchange for becoming a woman for a bit of time.) We established and even used these rules, but then we got to this one fight where we were losing and I needed to heal up, and when I put on the ring nothing happened. Well the dm said that the power would only work if I put it on my… erectus maximus (hey, we were young highschoolers back then cut us some slack). I pointed out this violated continuity and was was stupid bullshit for the sake of a joke, but he didn’t change his mind. That’s the only time I can ever think of ‘The DM is Wrong’ kinda moment. The rest of my experiences there has never been anything where thr dm was completely in the ‘wrong’. Though my friends would maybe argue about this one time the dm had rat swarms acting and moving very tactically in combat for simple rats (Tactical Rats has become a meme amongst my friends.) That was more a debate on proper monster behavior, which could countered by operating the enemies Ina way to make this more challenging.