D&D General "Argument-Stopping Protocols" -- please advise!

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"My way, or the highway. Your choice".

 

[Doug McCrae]

The DM has to use the authority of their position to end the argument. They can say things like "this is my decision", "this is my ruling for now and I'll think about it later", "stop arguing", or even "shut the f--- up".

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally, I find that explaining my decisions and keeping an open mind about feedback is sufficient.

When I make a ruling, I generally give then a quick explanation of why (unless that would give away too much, in which case I just say that).

If a player has a valid counterargument, I don't just dismiss it. I give it fair consideration and if I don't agree I explain why.

I've found that treating other players like adults (as above) always works provided that the player is acting in good faith. If they're not acting in good faith (they get their jollies from ruining other people's fun) you've got much bigger issues, and you'll most likely need to ask the person to cut it out or leave.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

The only tried and true method to keep an argumentative table calm and under control:

 

[Eltab]

A timer, if the argument is something like "should we check out one more room, or fort up for a Rest?". Give them some reasonable length to discuss, such as 5 or 10 minutes.

But as noted above, we need to know what the arguments are about, in order to offer helpful advice.

 

[jasper]

Rules. 3 minutes or I make a ruling. Ruling stands for the night. I will research the rule question and give an answer before next session.
Personality conflict. Hey JOE and Bob zip and get along. If this does not work, one person leaves after two arguments.

 

[MNblockhead]

Pretty much agree with most of the posts above. I'm lucky to have a good group--we keep the drama in the game. Still, to keep things fun, I have a few simple rules:

1. No politics

Period. The US is so divided and I have some friends who have very strong and differing opinions on the politics. While we can argue heatedly about politics and remain friends, the game table is not the place for it.

2. I'll hear out arguments about rules but will make a decision and we move on

Actually this is not much of an issue. I rely on some of my players for the rules for less common situations and especially for spells. There are times where I may disagree with a players understanding of certain rules, but I'll hear them out, then I make a decision and we move on. I'll research it after the game and if I'm wrong, I let folks know that, but we almost never retcon. We just agree to adhere to the correct rule going forward.

3. If you take too long, you lose your turn in initiative

This is more from my players than me. I'm perhaps overly patient. But my players get very annoyed when people are not ready on their turn. It doesn't mean that that table never allows anyone time to look something or take a bit more time to determine what they will do, but it should not be frequent. If a player is clearly not ready I'll often just go next in initiative and come back to that player at the end of the initiative order.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. This is helpful.

I'm reluctant to go into the specifics, because: 1) its complicated; we've had over a year's worth of wrangling, on many different issues. and 2) I might share this thread with other members of my group, as a helpful resource; so I want to be careful to not hurt anyone's feelings, or to paint things in a one-sided light. I admit that it takes two to tango -- I have regularly fallen into a wrangling dynamic, and I feel demoralized about it.

But to whittle it down a bit: it's not player-vs-player conflict, and it's not about outside politics; it's entirely between me and the other co-DM; we take turns DMing and playing different adventures. (Our D&D club has five members, including myself.) Our arguing has mostly been about rules; and especially about:

1) playing straight RAW vs. bringing in houserules and tweaks (e.g. revised Shield Master feat)
2) low-magic vs. high-magic (magic-item rich)
3) in a group with two co-DMs, using a shared ruleset, who is the authority?

Now, we have had a good deal of fun over the past year, but these sore spots (about different values, different understandings, and different needs/wants) have built up, and I sometimes don't look forward to playing anymore. We're taking a week off, to help soothe frayed ends.

Last week we argued about numerous topics, for a long time. This time it happened after the game.

A few days later, two players (my fellow arguer, along with another player, who was trapped there listening to us argue, waiting for a ride home) both voiced an idea of adopting 'table rules' about arguing. Basically an Argument Protocol: a protocol for stopping arguments. And that sounds like a good idea -- a positive stride forward.

So I'm doing 'due diligence'. What would such a protocol entail? (The idea about 1 minute time-limit sounds like a good start.) I've gotten a helpful spectrum of advice from ENWorld fellows before.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The nice thing about having two DMs is they do things differently.

1) playing straight RAW vs. bringing in houserules and tweaks (e.g. revised Shield Master feat)
2) low-magic vs. high-magic (magic-item rich)

There is no "right" answer. It's purely up to the DM. So arguing about it will inevitably be a dead end.

3) in a group with two co-DMs, using a shared ruleset, who is the authority?

This is the cause of your problem. Whoever is DM at the time is the authority, so using a shared ruleset it impossible.

Separate the games out. Each DM has their own setting, and the players have different characters in each setting. Take turns.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, it sounds like your issue is stemming from trying to run a shared campaign with a shared rule set between two DMs with different DMing styles and tone preferences. I think the most apparent solution would simply be to stop trying to run a shared campaign and just each DM a different campaign. Either switch off week to week, or between adventures.