Does "rules light" lead to more arguments?

[Celebrim]

To me, arguments are not usually born of rules heaviness or lightness. They come from the different expectations of the games and from sloppy rules. Argument happen when what a gamer sees in their head and what the rules or dice say what happened don't match a few too many times.

I fully agree.

Most rules arguments I've seen have to do with the player feeling that the rule or ruling is unfair because it produces what they don't think is a reasonable result. The player then takes the stance that the GM is not adhering to either the spirit or letter of the rule, with the GM taking the opposite stance. This usually occurs when the mechanics of the rule are blended in with the flavor of the thing the mechanics are supposed to represent, so that it is ambiguous where one ends and the other begins. It also occurs where sloppy editing and limited time spent in imagination by the designer results in a situation where the rule is clear in one situation, but ambiguous in another equally applicable situation.

Back in 1e, I remember the biggest source of rules arguments was over 'infravision', because the text (and players) just kinda assumed this worked in an obvious manner simply from the descriptor 'infravision'. But of course, the mechanics of what was realistic for 'infravision' and the unexpected consequences of different perceptions of how it worked, weren't something easily agreed on. Can you for instance track monsters from the heat of their footprints? Is so, for how long afterwards? Are zombies invisible with infravision? And so forth.

In fact, this problem of ambiguity between mechanics and what might have been flavor text came up last session with the text of the spell 'Message'. The spell says you have to point at the recipient, but the text also makes it clear you don't need line of sight. So how do you point at a target if you don't have line of sight to it? How accurate does the pointing need to be? Can it be just in the general direction, or does it have to be exactly accurate? It didn't actually end up as an argument, because I have good players and personally I didn't mind it working, but that's a very typical example of where you end up with huge rules arguments. As a DM, I wanted to know, was the pointing intended as mechanics or was it flavor. If it was mechanics, how does it work? No one was sure. I made the PC do a skill check to point in the right direction, and then move on.

Nonetheless, after the session I went back and rewrote the rules for clarity, replacing the problematic term 'point' with 'designate' and explaining exactly what conditions allowed you to designate a target. This is the advantage of being master of your own rules.

Occasionally, a player will offer that a rule is simply bad, and that it needs amendment because the results aren't illogical. Usually this is the case of 'Realism vs. the Rules', which I admit is probably the most intractable rules argument you can have because you end up in an argument over what is 'realistic'. Nonetheless, I've done this before as a player a couple of times I'm sure, but the clearest memory I have of it was with some newly adopted rules for ship to ship combat from Dragon Magazine, where in the middle I told the DM that these were clearly never playtested and why it was a problem. He agreed, and we agreed on a solution after the session. But in general, denouncing a rule like that on some grounds can get some GM's miffed (and often with cause). On the other hand, announcing to the player that the rules aren't meant to be realistic is likely to get the player upset, because often 'realistic' is being used as a proxy for a lot of other criticisms of the rule. Fundamentally what is going on is again, the claim is made that the rule or ruling isn't fair.

 

[Oryan77]

My last campaign had this happen a lot from one player, to the point that it drained on everyone. That player eventually left the group and everyone had more fun.

Out of curiosity, what exactly was the situation? What sort of "loose with the rules" stuff were you doing that he didn't like?

A lot of people are saying things like, "2e was rules heavy". But did your group actually play the edition rules heavy? I know there were a lot of sourcebooks and optional choices. But other than buildings a character, when it came to using the rules, we were really loose with 2e.

So when I'm saying "rules light", I'm kind of referring more to how you guys used the rules rather than if the edition had a lot of rules. In my experience, the rules-lawyering really didn't seem to get ugly until 3e came out and it was so easy for players to learn the rules. So then they knew when the DM was not using the rules as written. In my old 2e group, nobody questioned the DM if he was using the rules as written. He was only questioned when the player disagreed with how a DM was ruling a situation. That was only because both the player and DM didn't know the official rule (and didn't care). We just wanted the DM's ruling to be a fair ruling. Since the 2e rules were not as straight forward & easy to look up as 3e-4e, it was too much hassle to stop the game to find a ruling on something piddly.

So I was just wondering if more rules causes more rules lawyering because they know the ruling is being used wrong. Or if less rules causes more rules lawyering because the players don't know the rules and disagree with how the DM is ruling. I don't have any experience with systems that really are rules-light. But it sounds like people are mostly saying that it has nothing to do with the system, it's just the players.

 

[Celebrim]

I try to make it clear whenever I start a game that if no one at the table knows Rule X I'm just wing it and come back to it after the session to see if there was something more applicable. I hate bogging down a session going "Okay, it's not in the PHB ... what about the DMG? No? Hmm ... maybe it's in the appendix of the MM....." Being able to say something like "You're jumping onto the monster's back and attacking it? Roll to hit and give me a ride check." is, in my experience, more fun, interesting and rewarding.

I think that that is very much the appropriate approach and I certainly approve. My general rule is, if I don't know how I should rule, it's a relevant skill check at DC 15.

However, and I think you reference this as well, ad hoc rule-smithing like that isn't easy and is unlikely to be fully thought out. Stunts are wonderful, but what is wonderful about stunts is the novel and imaginative play. One of the dangerous of ruling in favor of a stunt with an overly simple ruling is that you end up creating a situation where there is mechanically little or no risk involved in the stunt, but a potentially large payoff. Or in other words, you've just created a mechanic that violates the natural understanding of a stunt which is high risk for a reward. When you do that, the risk you run is that instead of being a creative stunt, this proposition will now become one which is repeated as a standard maneuver ad infinitum thereafter in every similar situation.

What you really want to do when smithing rules is create rules that are as quick to resolve as they can be for the fiction that they represent, but which still evocatively help create the experience of the fiction. You also want to balance the spot light as much as possible. If your ad hoc ruling is consistently favoring one approach to building a character over another, another player feels cheated - and arguably rightfully so - if he created a character under a certain understanding and now finds himself left out of the fun. You also want in some cases simulation balance, in the sense that applying this rule consistently should ultimately leave intact the experience of the setting. If the setting is grim and gritty, applying the ruling consistently should leave it so rather than turning it zany, comic, or into unexpected wuxia. If the setting is Capes and Crusaders, superheroes in medieval garb, applying the rule shouldn't turn it grim and gritty. If the combat is meant to be a tense, taunt, competitive experience, applying ad hoc rulings shouldn't turn it into a challengeless cakewalk. And so forth.

So while I agree with you about the need for DM flexibility and the need to have a DM that can smith out rules on the fly, I would also say that if you expect anything like what provoked the ruling to ever happen again, you need to formalize the rule and spend some time really thinking about its implications.

As for the specific example of jumping on a monster's back and attacking it, in my campaign, this is how that proposition is handled:

Clinch Manuever
CLINCH
Clinching is special manuever which brings you inside the guard of larger creature or opponent using a larger weapon. From there, you try to shelter from your opponent’s attacks using your opponent’s greater reach against them and even treating your foes own body as cover. You can also attempt to attack your foe at such close range that they are unable to defend themselves.

In order to clinch, the opponent must be either of a larger size class than you, or wielding at least one weapon which is a larger size class than at least one of your weapons. You can't clinch against an opponent more than one size class smaller than you under any circumstances. You can’t clinch a creature with no meaningful anatomy – such as an ooze or swarm. To clinch, you must draw an Attack of Oppurtunity and then make a successful opposed clinch check.

Clinch Checks
Repeatedly in a clinch, you need to make opposed clinch maneuver checks against an opponent. Your bonus on a clinch manuever check is: Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
Special Size Modifier: The special size modifier for a clinch check is as follows: Colossal -16, Gargantuan -12, Huge -8, Large -4, Medium +0, Small +4, Tiny +8, Diminutive +12, Fine +16. Use this number in place of the normal size modifier you use when making an attack roll. This size modifier is opposite that of the grappling modifier.
Clinch Checks and Skill Usage: If you are trained in balance, you can substitute your balance check for your BAB in a clinch check. If you are at least two size classes smaller than your foe and you are trained in climb or have a racial climb speed, you can use your climb check instead. Other skills may be used at the DM's discrestion if the circumstances warrant it, such as swim when fighting in water or ride when clinching a creature which can normally be mounted.

Effects of a Clinch: When you clinch, your opponent can move, but they must succeed in an opposed clinch maneuver check to avoid bringing you along with them (breaking the clinch). Further more, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to your AC with respect to their attacks and a +2 circumstance bonus to hit. If you are smaller than your opponent, you get an additional +2 dodge bonus per difference in size classes. Note that unlike grappling, clinching an opponent in and of itself imposes no condition on them. They can still act normally. Likewise, while clinched with your opponent you can attack normally.

The downside of a clinch is you give up your attack of opportunity if your opponent attempts to grapple you, which in many cases they will very likely want to do if they can. Once you are grappled, the clinch is broken.

On later turns, provided your opponent has not found a way to break the clinch, as a move equivalent action you may make an opposed clinch check and if successful, your opponent is considered flatfooted with respect to your attacks that round. Conceptually, you get so close to a vital region that your opponent is unable to defend it.

Breaking the Clinch: If you initiated the Clinch, you may break the clinch…
Voluntarily: At any time during your turn or at any time when the target of your clinch moves, you may break a clinch you initiated.
Moving Away: If you move so that you are no longer adjacent to the target of your clinch, the clinch is automatically broken.

If you are the target of a Clinch, you may break the clinch…
By Moving Away: If you move away from a creature that is clinching you, it has the option of voluntararily releasing the clinch or moving with you. If it wishes to continue the clinch by moving with you, it must win an opposed clinch check. If you have a faster speed than clinching creature, you gain a +4 bonus when attempting to break a clinch in this manner. If you are also using a movement mode that the clinching creature does not naturally have, you gain an additional +4 bonus (for a total of +8).
By Deliberate Effort: At the beginning of your turn, you can attempt to break the clinch of any one opponent currently clinching you. This does not require an action. If you beat the opponent in an opposed clinch check, you have broken the clinch.
By Grappling: If you succeed in a grappling attack versus a creature that has clinched you, you break the clinch.
By Trashing: As a full round action, you flail wildly in an attempt to dislodge your attackers. Each clinching opponent must make a DC 15 Reflex save. If they fail, they take damage as from one of your unarmed attacks, and the clinch is broken. Creatures with a natural trample or crush attack form may subsitute the damage of their trample or crush attack for their unarmed attack.

Breaking the Clinch and the Environment: If you have clinched an airborne flying creature, when the clinch is broken you must either fly or you are falling. If you have clinched a creature that is swimming, when the clinch is broken you must either swim or sink.

Clinch and Two-Weapon Fighting: When a character is armed with two weapons of different sizes, it presents additional complexities. You may still clinch if the foe is wielding at least one weapon which is a larger size class than at least one of your weapons, but clinching in this case is not completely effective. If you successfully clinch, you may not attack with a weapon which is larger than the largest weapon your opponent is wielding. The bonus to attack you receive from clinching only applies to weapons you have that are smaller than the smallest weapon your opponent is wielding. Finally, the bonus to AC you receive from clinching only applies to attacks by the opponent from weapons larger than the smallest weapon you are wielding. Your opponent may still attack without penalty with any weapon of the same size or smaller than your smallest weapon.

Mutually Clinched: It is possible for two creatures using a two-weapon fighting stance to clinch each other. When this occurs, neither may voluntarily break the clinch unless both voluntarily break the clinch.

 

[Celebrim]

So I was just wondering if more rules causes more rules lawyering because they know the ruling is being used wrong. Or if less rules causes more rules lawyering because the players don't know the rules and disagree with how the DM is ruling. I don't have any experience with systems that really are rules-light. But it sounds like people are mostly saying that it has nothing to do with the system, it's just the players.

When the players don't know the rules and don't expect to know the rules, the DM is placed in a very high trust position by default. Effectively, he really can't get it wrong because no one knows what right is, and rules arguments seldom break out except when the ruling unexpectedly puts the PC in a very bad position, with the player then balking, "Are you sure that is right? That can't be right."

I had that situation occur in the very first session of my current game. The PC got put down to 1 hit point, and since he was used to 3e rules, he tried to take an evade action. Under my rules, differing from standard 3e, this doesn't work. When I told him, he balked. I had to explain him the logic of my rules, which at that time he didn't trust (or me), and explain what the system expects you to do in this situation. (The short of it is that I have a quasi-wound track system, with a 'wounded' condition reached before 'dying', and that once you are grievously wounded it's too late to try to run away.) He's now perfectly cool with it, but the time his character was about to die (first session) and he wasn't.

With much less knowledge of regular 3e, my other players have usually done less vociferous rules arguing than he has on occasion.

This occurs irrespective of how many rules that there actually are. In fact, this is an excellent example of why rules arguing is independent of the number of rules. In this case, the players don't really know if the system is rules heavy or rules light.