This happens occasionally during our games, I was wondering how everyone else approaches it.

You should always (politely) point out when another player or the GM (especially the GM) is in error. Following the rules ultimately makes for a better game, IMO, even if it hurts you in the short term.

If it can be fixed fast, is somewhat important and you think he didn't do it deliberately: Try to correct it.

If it isn't that important, just roll with it, maybe hint at it later. I hate losing precious ingame time to stupid rule-lookups and discussions.

Pass the GM a note pointing out the problem. I find this the least offensive way to handle this problem.

It depends on the GM. I know that some of my GMs don't really care about the rules or tweak them a lot while others just don't really know the rules very well.
It also depends on the importance of the rule and the time we have to discuss it.

Always point of the mistake, even if inconvenient, unless it's not a mistake.

As the GM I am always right...

Also I noticed that the player usually dont care to read the rules themselves so they dont have a lot to point out.

Interestingly I did a poll on our gaming club site and 30% of the players have admitted cheating at dice or seeing other players cheating without reporting it... wich contradict a bit the result here.

Not to mention since I got thoses result I entirely stop cheating the dice results I roll as a GM, if they die, they die. If they are managing their own luck there is no need for my intervention.

I point it out if it's an advantage or disadvantage TO ME.
If i have nothing to do with the situation, i keep quiet.
Usually. Only if i wanna rile someone up i speak up then.

Depends on whether it's a small matter/limited to a rare situation, or something that comes up all the time. In the latter case I bring it up to discuss it after a game, in the former case I just interject it in game.

Though I am almost always the GM.

I wait until the session is over, and then say something like "Hey, I think you mixed this up." I never call the GM on it at the table- it's his/her show, and they have final say as long as we're playing.

I expect the same from my players.

as has been pointed out, this really depends a lot on the situation.

if the GM says "i think you roll X + Y" and i know that the roll is supposed to be "X + Z" then i'll say so.

if the GM just doesn't apply a modifier that is obviously there, i'll usually mention it as well (ex if someone is on higher ground).

if it's something relatively insignificant (forgetting to add a modifier that balances out, for example), it can wait until it becomes relevant, or wait until after the game if it doesn't become relevant.

all that being said, if the GM says they're doing things differently, then i don't argue. I'll point out when i think the rules are being broken, but if they're being broken knowingly then who cares. I'd rather have a fun game that breaks the rules than a boring game that follows the rules (though it should be noted that it is entirely possible to also have a game that is played by the rules and is fun, or to have a game that breaks the rules but isn't fun, of course)

things that i won't bring up in general would be something like "i've memorised the stats on fire spirits and they only have A dice to roll for situation B". for one thing, i typically *haven't* memorised those stats. for another, as far as i'm concerned, the GM mucking around with the enemies' stats is the GM's prerogative... in fact, that's a big part of the reason to have a GM at all. likewise if the GM creates situational modifiers that aren't in the book, or something like that (like if you fell into a puddle of oil someone dumped to make you fall, and now you take a penalty to certain tests for example). basically, if it's the GM getting creative, then i don't even consider it an error in the first place, even though the GM might be "getting the rules wrong" in terms of following the book exactly.

We play loose and fast so more often than not someone will pull up the rules to check on a ruling mid-game and the GM seems to cope fairly well with being corrected.

I'm a big fan of fair treatment to everyone, so as a GM I dont mind players correcting me mid-game if I do a rules blunder.




I gotta agree with you here, I do ALL of my rolls open, and if a character dies, he's dead and stays dead.
As far as the cheating goes, I had this problem in one of my groups once a few years ago, several players approached my after the game repeatedly complaining about the same guy cheating on his die rolls. I told them I'd have to see this for myself, and eventually caught the guy doing it.

Ever since then everyone who plays with me knows I kick players out of my group first offense when I see them cheating at the dice. This seems to help a lot, I never encountered the problem again.

We actually let the DM know about the mistake. No matter who it benefits from it.
After the session we then check the rules and interpret the correct procedure for the next session.

Exactly this. Rules are less important then fun, and I'm not interested in playing with anyone who thinks otherwise. Pointing out rules *can* be important and fun, however - if somebody gets KO'd by a lucky roll and everybody is disappointed, you can point out the rules about cyberlimbs giving extra health boxes and keep the game moving. On the other hand, if the GM has just declared that the corp goons punch out your team's decker, interrupting the game to remind the GM that their cyberlimbs do physical and not stun damage (and therefore the PC is dead) is a dick move on a number of levels, even if you were technically correct.

I always point out the mistake, but never in the middle of a game unless its seriously flawed.

I try to point out obvious mistakes and as a GM I expect players to tell me when I'm wrong. The key is to not ruin the flow of the game. For instance if your in combat and the GM forgot to apply a modifier to a roll, then bring it up. If the GM says you spotted something and you didn't do a perception check, don't sweat it.

I'll always try to resolve an error, but only when I feel it's the best as far as keeping the game moving, how much the error is affecting the game, and how sure I am that something is not right.

One situation...the GM expresses doubt my mage can cast 2 stunbolts simultaneously. Easy fix, so I stood my ground.

The way I run my games is that anyone can point out a rule mistake or violation at any time. However, I will almost always say: "Ok, while everyone else is taking their action could you look this up for me, until then we're going to use ________." On rare occasion I'll say "I know, I'm forgoing the rule for ______." (usually plot, but even that's rare).

If the player seems more certain about it then me and it's plausible, I'll likely use his rule/modifier/whatever in that blank, but otherwise I'll stick to what I was doing.

It's sorta unrealistic to think that every GM has all 6 books memorized, so a way to check on the rules and keep things moving at the same time is pretty important. I can recommend a bit of a "knowledge split". Like for instance, the GM should have a very good grasp of main mechanics and a good knowledge of specialized fields (magic, matrix, cyberware, combat). A player should have a very good knowledge of their specialized field, so the mage should know magic rules real well, the hacker/TM knows the matrix inside and out, the Sam knows gear and less oft used combat rules (like throwing an unwilling metahuman body), rigger knows vehicle rules, etc. This way, the GM should be able to handle most things but when something comes up he/she can turn to one person in the group for a quick answer, or to ask them to look it up.

It's been working for my group so far, but granted, at this point I don't need much help on rules besides matrix typically.

At our table, regardless of GM (either me or one other), we always point out rules issues, but usually wait to resolve and make a final decision in-between sessions, unless its really easy to fix right there. There are a few of us that are willing to spend a little bit of time researching and checking forums to find other discussions on the rule in question.

We end up with one of three outcomes: 1) use the rule "correctly" in the future, 2) agree the rule is unbalanced and use the "wrong" interpretation the GM had or 3) fix it and use a houserule in the future.

Rarely is it worth it to stop the game to research and discuss.

If it will significantly alter gameplay, it's a minor correction, or the GM seems to be searching for the answer, I'll tell him. If it's a minor issue, or he seems to have things in hand, I'll shut up rather than disturb the flow of the game. However, I haven't been a player in ANYTHING significant for... hrm... five or six years, so take that with a grain of salt

If the GM wants to know, I'll help out. But I don't really like to sit and point out rules all the times, I hate when games just become discussions about rules.

I GM more often than not, and personally I prefer if my players call me on a mistake, even if not immediately. I like to know so I can review the rule or situation and see what mistake was made. When playing with other GMs I try to politely inform them and if they wish to continue with their calling, then I let it go.

I always call, even when it goes against me. If I just wanted to win all the time with no challenge, I'd play free-form games.

The way we usually run it is if someone states the correction and everyone goes "oh duh, that's right..." we immediately switch. If it takes a second to research, we'll look it up quickly, but if it'd take more than a minute to find the rule, we just pick how we want to play it the rest of the session and double check it between sessions.

I try my hardest to encourage option A, largely because my biggest weakness as a GM is the crunch. I'm a superb worldbuilder, I think, but hell if I know what the roll is for a particular hacking check (Matrix rules are a huge gap in my understanding, in particular). So I don't bite people's head off over correcting me, because I know I largely need the help. It also helps that our group tends to have a strong sense of social contract, in that we trust each other not to game the system.

That said, the players aren't exactly rules geniuses either, considering most had never done tabletop before this campaign. So we just handwave a lot of things unless it's really necessary.

As a player, I tend to ask questions for the sake of learning shit, but I'm not convinced of my understanding of the rules and I'm kind of shy, so I rarely force the issue, and certainly wouldn't just to gain an advantage.

QFT. Same here. I've GM'd a bunch, but SR4 world is still a mental overload. I forget the modifiers constantly to the point of having cheat sheets, and I certainly don't remember some arcane rule that's errata'd to something different in 4a unless it was huge. 3 minute (rough) rule on rules checks if there's a contention, unless someone's in the middle of that 'falling off a cliff and can i get my hang-glider out in time' kinda rule. If it takes longer... it's GM fudge the rules time. Write a note, nail it down later.

I always say something, but I wont press the issue unless the GM is totally wrong. If the GM forgets a specific rule about something, but calls for a more general roll I'll usually just mention that a specific rule exists. If however they are just trying to railroad the game I'll cry bloody murder for not using the proper rule.



...especially if they try to railroad me into surviving.

As a recovering rules lawyer, I've learned the hard way that the number one rule for a player is Don't bog the game down.

Number one rule for a GM is during the game session is My world my rules.

Number one rule for everyone is have fun and help everyone else to do the same.


A lot depends on the GM and the relationship with the group. I have one player that will look rules up for me and I trust him to do so to help me.


I find it best to make sure the GM and the group are on the same page (in as short a data burst as I can make it), then go forward with what ever what ever GM rules.


Once the game is over you can discuss the rules and check the books. I'll speak my piece and then the GM rules what the GM rules. His game his rules even if he has it wrong. I'll also ask him how he things something works just to make sure we are on the same page



Also if the GM is in transition/narrative mode, then it is another good time to roll with it if at all possible. He is just trying to move the game along and it is best to roll with it.

The very best GMs fall into one of two categories:

1) They play the rules to the letter and it doesn't show

2) They play completely on the fly and it doesn't show

Just thought that little addage might bring a smile.