In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?

[Ninja-to]

A long time running 'issue' I suppose that I've had with past groups is arguing over rules and debating calls during game.

I DM a game now and we lost one player primarily over rules disputes. Since then, the game has been *far* more peaceful and much easier on me and also the other players. I learned a huge lesson from the experience, and that is just ONE player can derail an entire group and campaign and you should always be very careful with who you let into your games.

That said, there are still times where players disagree with rulings, which is fine, but occasionally the disputes become heated and the player(s)/DM alike become frustrated and the fun factor drops considerably. I'm positive this happens or at least has happened with probably everyone that has ever played D&D, but I'm just curious to know how you deal with it?

Of course, you can always ask the player to stop playing, but let's leave that as a last resort for advice here. That's an easy given. I want to hear how you resolve issues with players bickering or disputing your point.

For my 2 cents, I tell my players basically time out and 'let's talk about it later out of game, for now let's go with this' and that usually works, but if it's a critical ruling where a PC can die for example, that's not always a good option. Sometimes disputes need solving on the spot, and unless you see eye-to-eye on critical choices there's huge potential for strife.

So, what do you do?

 

[youspoonybard]

As both a DM and a player, the DM makes the final call, and everyone lives with it.

In either situation, I always explain my interpretation, and if I'm DM, I let the player explain why he is so. But in either case the DM has the final call.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Assuming I'm DMing, it really depends. If its important then we'll discuss for a few minutes, and make a decision the group can live with. We're not squemish with House Rules, first we decide what that is, then decide if we like it. House Rules are a cooperative group thing and not a DM-ruled thing in our group, by the way. If its not too important, then I'll declare something and we'll go with it. Usually if there is a dispute, I'll rule in favor of the players, honestly.

I take a note about what came up then later we look over it with a more fine toothed comb. We decide if we like the RAW on the matter, and we decide the possible consequences. Sometimes I just say I'll bring up the question on ENWorld (referred to as simply "the boards") or a player will say he thinks it should be brought up, so then based on all this we decide what we think is best for our game.

I think the last time this came up was regarding the divine damage in flame strike, which we determined probably made half the damage regeneratable by trolls, however we didn't like it so we house ruled it to be "divine fire" damage instead that bypassed resistance yet still counted as being fire damage for regenerative purposes in our newest House Rule. It took roughly two minutes.

 

[Crothian]

DM makes a ruling that we follow then and there and after the session before the next sesion we look it up and learn the right way to do things.

 

[Testament]

Oh crap. We just had a DM quit because we argued a rules call with him (mainly because he was DEAD WRONG and was wilfully ignoring the rules on the Blink spell. Magic Missiles DO IGNORE the miss chance, what part of "Force effects function normally" didn't he understand?). It shouldn't have to happen, but we're people, and we are going to have arguments.

By the same token, I don't think its unrealistic for players to expect that their GM know the frelling rules of the game they're running.

 

[Ruavel]

DM makes a ruling that we follow then and there and after the session before the next sesion we look it up and learn the right way to do things.

I've been using this system with my group for years, as does the other DM who runs games for us... works a treat, I think... brief rule questions are OK, but once it gets to a certain point he or I just say "Time to move on. We'll have a final answer next session. For now X stands."... keeps the game flowing

We just had a DM quit because we argued a rules call with him (mainly because he was DEAD WRONG and was wilfully ignoring the rules on the Blink spell. Magic Missiles DO IGNORE the miss chance, what part of "Force effects function normally" didn't he understand?).

possible the part where he/she was the DM and therefore was in charge of the world in which you were playing, and therefore gets to alter things as much or as little as he/she might wish from time to time...

 

[Celebrim]

DM makes a ruling that we follow then and there and after the session before the next sesion we look it up and learn the right way to do things.

Bingo.

In fact, I make it a rule when I'm a PC never to question a DM's ruling until after the session, and preferably in private.

Then again, it's annoying when the DM clearly does not know the rules. It's also been my opinion that whenever possible the DM should know the rules better than anyone else playing.

If you are a DM, and you don't know how to rule the situation, don't be afraid to ask for an opinion from the PC's. On the other hand, don't let the PC's run your game, and don't get in the habit of debating rules lawyers and other sorts of metagamers and whiners. If someone whined with me longer than about 1 minute, I'd close my books, hand them to that person and declare, "Since you want to run this game so badly, why don't you do so."

We just had a DM quit because we argued a rules call with him (mainly because he was DEAD WRONG and was wilfully ignoring the rules on the Blink spell. Magic Missiles DO IGNORE the miss chance, what part of "Force effects function normally" didn't he understand?).

Bzzzttttt. The DM is never 'DEAD WRONG'. The DM might occassionaly be mistaken (we're all human), but if you show a rule to a DM and he says, 'So?', then the freaking rule doesn't apply because the DM has overruled it. In this case, if the DM says that magic missiles don't ignore the miss chance, THEN THEY DON'T IGNORE THE MISS CHANCE. If I had a group of PC's hold a book in front of me and say 'This is the way that it should be done', I'd have quit too. If you want to run the game so badly, perhaps you should do it. The above situation wouldn't even raise an eyebrow with me as a player, unless previous a PC had used a blink spell and magic missiles ignored the miss chance for him. That would be a sign of bad DMing. The above is just a sign of a DM excercising his judgement.

If you could Testament, could you please wear a T-shirt that says, "I'm an immature rules lawyer." so that in case we ever meet, I'd be notified not to invite you to play.

 

[shilsen]

DM makes a ruling that we follow then and there and after the session before the next sesion we look it up and learn the right way to do things.

Same here. I've got no problem with players correcting me and actually suggest to them that they do, but once I've made a ruling, we move on and deal with it (if any further dealing is required, that is) post-game. Same thing when I'm a player. I'll bring up a rules point if the DM missed something, and if he then makes a ruling that is blatantly wrong IMO, I just bring it up post-game.

 

[Testament]

Ruavel, Celebrim, the problem is that as a player, the DM in question is also a rules lawyer, and argued rules calls regularly, usually siding with the RAW against homebrew flavour calls (for example, changes to spell schools and the teleport table, changes that had been given, IN WRITING, at the campaign start). For them to turn around and start making DM calls that openly contradict the RAW smacks of hypocrisy to me.

I was on a short fuse anyway at the time, since earlier the GM had tried to dictate my PC's actions in combat. Was I under a compulsion effect? No? Then the GM doesn't get to decide what a PC does.

 

[Izerath]

Heh - nip it in the bud.

I had this problem with a few people in my group to the point it would bring combat to a crawl and totally ruin the game for me, the DM. I could never get the feel I wanted because of the microcosm of tactical arguements that would ensue.

So one game session, I blew up and called the game. Right in the middle of a combat. The room sat in stunned silence. "Pack it up - I mean it - I am not having fun, so leave."

Fortunately, there are voices of reason in the group, and those diplomats came to "save the game." After 30 minutes of chatting with the rest dumbfounded in another room, I set down the laws of the land. No rules arguements during play. I don't care what the book says, if I am wrong or right. If you have a problem with it, then talk to me AFTER the game. And if you expect me to change the outcomes, HAH. Tuf luck sailor. My word is law, because I play to have fun, not to slave over someone else's idea of what the rules say or do not say.

After a few tenuous games, everyone finally settled in to the fact I would no longer let a few rule lawyers spoil my fun. Now i get the "feel" to the game I want, and the lawyers toil in the incidious unpredictability of my game calling - and I revel in it, because I am having fun! And ironically, so are they.....