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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A->B, because you can't have specific expectation about the rules if you don't know the rules.

False.

I can not know the rules for a particular game system, and yet still expect that:

1) They do exist
2) The DM will adjudicate them fairly
2a) Will not change them without good reason

 

[Celebrim]

If you say "I'm running a D&D game", the implied social contract is that you will be using the D&D rules, and not, for example, a variant of D&D that functions exactly like GURPS.

You keep saying that, but it actually doesn't mean a darn thing because its so unspecific that it could mean anything. There is not a universal implied social contract about the D&D rules no matter how much you want there to be one.

Everyone on this board agrees that when someone says, "I'm running a D&D game.", that it almost certainly includes the implication that its a D&D game plus a bunch of house rules because everyone here admits that they've housed ruled D&D to death on at least one occasion, but I doubt anyone who did that ever thought twice about saying that they were playing D&D. Certainly any player who has played D&D for any period of time has the implicit understanding that their will probably be house rules. When some one asks you, "Have you ever played D&D?", do you answer "No." just because you had extensive house rules?

Secondly, as I continue to point out, if a player has no knowledge of the rules then he certainly has know expectations about what those rules should be. So, if someone who has no knowledge of the D&D rules plays a game he believes to be D&D, but which in fact is completely unbeknownst to him has been house ruled to the point that it is actually GURPS (which is an ubsurd strawman, but never mind that), then no implied social contract has been broken. The players isn't expecting a particular rules set, he's only expecting to be entertained. Later, when he plays GURPS, he might go, "Hey, this is alot like D&D", or latter when he plays D&D with another DM he might go, "I remember shields being alot more effective than this.", but he's probably not going to be pissed at the first DM if he had a good time playing.

Thirdly, even if there were a universial implied social contract that playing D&D involves something like the D&D rules, there is plenty of evidence in this thread that a great many D&D players believe that playing D&D means abiding by rule 0 and that they believe rule 0 to be part of the implied social contract. If that is the case, then a player simply can't waltz into a D&D game and have any expectation that his understanding about a particular rule should be able to overrule anything that the DM says. Has it ever freakin' occurred to you that many of the DM's hold with rule 0 not because they are arrogant Stalinist megalomaniacs, but because when they first learned the game as players rule 0 applied, and they were taught both by the DM and the older players that they were to respect the DM decisions?

 

[Celebrim]

False.

I can not know the rules for a particular game system, and yet still expect that:

1) They do exist
2) The DM will adjudicate them fairly
2a) Will not change them without good reason

Sure, but that isn't specific expectations about the rules in same way that expecting a magic missile to hit a target using a blink spell is a specific expectation. Those are extremely general expectations about the game itself, that actually have very little to do with the rules. None of your expectations are strong restrictions on the nature of the rules. Let's imagine that we are playing a game which has 'Rule 0' as its only rule. Even this game meets your general expectations:

1) The rules exist. They are really short, but they exist.
2) The player still has a reasonable expectation to be treated fairly, but that expectation is seen now to have nothing really to do with the rules.
3) The player assumes that the DM will not rule in a particular way without good reason, but again we see that that expectation really has nothing to do with the rules.

I mean, if you've never seen the rules to an RPG before, how do you know that the game doesn't largely rest on 'rule 0'? Could you really imagine the complex simulation systems of modern RPG's? Would it really matter?

All you've really said with your objection is that the implied social contract includes a reasonable expectation of fair treatment by the DM, but that's something we both completely agree on.

 

[Storm Raven]

You keep saying that, but it actually doesn't mean a darn thing because its so unspecific that it could mean anything. There is not a universal implied social contract about the D&D rules no matter how much you want there to be one.

Except that the general consensus is that there is an implied social contract for using the D&D rules, when you say that you are using them.

Everyone on this board agrees that when someone says, "I'm running a D&D game.", that it almost certainly includes the implication that its a D&D game plus a bunch of house rules because everyone here admits that they've housed ruled D&D to death on at least one occasion, but I doubt anyone who did that ever thought twice about saying that they were playing D&D.

Yes, and it is part of the implied social contract that the DM will tell his players what house rules are being used before the game starts.

Secondly, as I continue to point out, if a player has no knowledge of the rules then he certainly has know expectations about what those rules should be.

Sure he can, and he can expect that those rules will be applied consistently across the board.

Thirdly, even if there were a universial implied social contract that playing D&D involves something like the D&D rules, there is plenty of evidence in this thread that a great many D&D players believe that playing D&D means abiding by rule 0 and that they believe rule 0 to be part of the implied social contract. If that is the case, then a player simply can't waltz into a D&D game and have any expectation that his understanding about a particular rule should be able to overrule anything that the DM says. Has it ever freakin' occurred to you that many of the DM's hold with rule 0 not because they are arrogant Stalinist megalomaniacs, but because when they first learned the game as players rule 0 applied, and they were taught both by the DM and the older players that they were to respect the DM decisions?

Except that you have missed a critical point about Rule 0: it says "check with your DM concerning any house rules". It doesn't say "the DM may change the rules at any time, at his whim, without telling you." Rule 0 isn't carte blanche for the DM to jerk the chains of his players willy-nilly. It is there to let players know there might be house rules, and to find out what they are from the DM. Conversely, Rule 0 makes it pretty clear that the DM should tell his players what those changes are.

 

[Celebrim]

Except that the general consensus is that there is an implied social contract for using the D&D rules, when you say that you are using them.

There is? There is a general consensus to use the D&D rules even though there is no general concensus over what they are? The 'D&D rules' is a broad category that covers all sorts of variations, house rules, and expansions many of which are contridict each other. If I say, "Hey, do you play D&D?", you are completely within your rights to answer, "Yes", even if your only exposure is Monte Cook's "Iron Lore". You can pretend that 'D&D rules' are a monolithic institution all you want, but it doesn't make it so. All that playing D&D implies is that the rules will be at some level recognizably D&D, and that's a really broad ground.

Yes, and it is part of the implied social contract that the DM will tell his players what house rules are being used before the game starts

No it isn't. It's part of the implied social contract that the DM will inform the players of things that they should know as part of thier IC knowledge when such things come. The rules are not part of that. There is no implied social contract that a DM will inform the players of the rules, and there is no implied contract that the DM must lay out all of his house rules explicitly before they come into effect.

Just think for a second what you are actually demanding. If we are to take you at thier word that this is some contractual agrement on the part of DM's to tell the players what house rules are in use before the game starts, you are claiming that the players have every right to overrule the DM unless he first has them read his whole list of house rules, and sign some sort of consent form that they were appraised of the rules and agree to play under them. Do you actually go into some new play group with that sort of attitude, or is the problem here that almost your entire gaming career has been confined to one or two play groups with a long history together?

Except that you have missed a critical point about Rule 0: it says "check with your DM concerning any house rules". It doesn't say "the DM may change the rules at any time, at his whim, without telling you." Rule 0 isn't carte blanche for the DM to jerk the chains of his players willy-nilly. It is there to let players know there might be house rules, and to find out what they are from the DM. Conversely, Rule 0 makes it pretty clear that the DM should tell his players what those changes are.

Except that when I say rule 0, I mean "The DM makes the rules." or any other expression that means the same thing. I am not refering to your version of rule 0, which I'm not even sure what is, but the version of 'rule 0' most commonly used when people refer to rule 0. I have no idea where you got the idea that you had the right to over turn rule 0, but I perfectly agree that rule zero isn't carte blanche for the DM to jerk the chains of his players willy-nilly. It is however carte blanche to alter any rule at any time he feels is a appropriate. If the players feel like they are having thier chains jerked, it might (or might not) have been a bad decision but he was well within his rights to make it.

Let's actually put your version of the rules into practice and see just how well they work. Imagine the following situation.

The PC's are fighting a minotaur in the outskirts of a circular hedge row labyrinth. The DM looks down and has the minotaur charge around the curve of the labyrinth, smashing into a player and doing terrible goring damage. The PC looks up and says, "You can't do that?" The DM says, "Huh? What do you mean?" He then picks up the player's handbook, and says, "Look, it says right here on page XX that you can only charge in straight lines." The DM says, "Yes, I know what it says, but that rule doesn't apply here. It's a gentle curving corridor. It's no more difficult to charge around than an oval track." The player says, "Yeah, but you didn't put that in the house rules. I didn't know that we were playing that way. You are breaking the implied social contract." The DM thinks, "Implied social conract? What about the implied social contract that I'm running this game?", but instead says, "Look, the situation has never come up before. I'm sorry it didn't make it into the house rules but it was so obvious that it didn't mean perfectly straight and that it was obviously a judgement call that I never even thought to write it down." The PC says, "Well, I think that since I wasn't informed about your house rule, that it shouldn't apply. I thought we were playing D&D and not some game you just made up. In D&D charges can only occur in straight lines. It says so in the rules." The DM says, "Look, this is a judgement call. The rules can't cover every situation and there is no way that my house rules can cover every situation. This is a straight enough line for the purposes." The PC says, "Well, if I'd known that, I would have never taken that feat that let me make charges that weren't in a straight line. This isn't fair, you are nerfing my ability." The DM says, "No I'm not. I'm still not going to let normal monsters and characters make radical changes in direction during a charge." The PC says, "Still, my feat isn't worth as much as I thought it would, you should let me take a new one." The DM sighs and says, "Look, you used that feat several times last session to charge around 90 degree corners. I'm not letting you take back feat selections that you've already used." The PC says, "Well, then you shouldn't change the rules on charging." Another PC backs him up, "Well, I would have charged last round except I didn't think I could because the rules said only straight lines for charging." The DM says, "I'm sorry you were confused, but you should have asked. I've said before that you shouldn't rely on the rules to tell you what you should do because the rules don't cover everything that will come up in play. Instead, rely on your own understanding about how the real world works. In the real world, you can run flat out along a gentle curve without slowing down even if you aren't a remarkable athelete. " The 1st PC says, "That's beside the point. I agreed to play a game, and this is a game and in the rules of this game you can't run or charge except in a straight line..."

And so on and so forth. There is in my opinion no difference whatsoever between the above case and the case of ruling that magic missile has a small miss chance versus blink.

In practice, the way of playing you are describing just doesn't work. I suspect that the group dynamics you are in are very different than the above, but I doubt that its because your DM gives all his house rules down on paper before you play the game. I expect that its because your DM is generally reasonable, and you respect him and you never think to question his rulings because they seem reasonable. And that is what is actually at issue. All this talk about implied social contracts about the rules is just nonsense.

 

[MoonZar]

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?

I resolve the issue with my decision, and i offer to discuss the rules on message board or by email with the other member of the group. So next time if the same rules came in the game we'll already had agree on something.

 

[werk]

Well, I think it is safe to say (again) that baggage has totally taken over this thread.
People on both sides have acknowledge that those on the other have valid points. Most of the posts lately are either arguments about what is a valid argument, or just talking past each other.
Enough already.
Yes, I know I can just stop reading the thread. Vote with my feet, so to speak.

Feet...don't fail me now!

 

[Storm Raven]

There is? There is a general consensus to use the D&D rules even though there is no general concensus over what they are? The 'D&D rules' is a broad category that covers all sorts of variations, house rules, and expansions many of which are contridict each other.

It means that when you say you will be playing D&D, the consensus is that you will be using the rules as written except where you tell the players otherwise.

No it isn't. It's part of the implied social contract that the DM will inform the players of things that they should know as part of thier IC knowledge when such things come. The rules are not part of that. There is no implied social contract that a DM will inform the players of the rules, and there is no implied contract that the DM must lay out all of his house rules explicitly before they come into effect.

And this is where your style of DMing goes from "being an annoyance to being an ass" to use your own phrasing. Hiding the rules from the players, and then springing the changes on them mid-stream is the very hallmark of bad DMing.

Just think for a second what you are actually demanding. If we are to take you at thier word that this is some contractual agrement on the part of DM's to tell the players what house rules are in use before the game starts, you are claiming that the players have every right to overrule the DM unless he first has them read his whole list of house rules, and sign some sort of consent form that they were appraised of the rules and agree to play under them.

The consent form is that they stay and play. Hiding the rules changes from them until play has begun is simply jerking their chains. You may like acting out your megolamaniacal power fantasies via DMing, but that's bad form.

Except that when I say rule 0, I mean "The DM makes the rules." or any other expression that means the same thing. I am not refering to your version of rule 0, which I'm not even sure what is, but the version of 'rule 0' most commonly used when people refer to rule 0.

Check your Player's Handbook. You'll find Rule 0 right there. Exactly as I described it. The fact that you don't even know what it is indicates to me that you really aren't playing D&D when you say you are. You are playing some other game, and calling it D&D.

You see, when you say "Rule 0", you mean something specific. And what you mean is different from what the Player's Handbook says is Rule 0. So when you refer to Rule 0, people naturally asssume you mean what the Player's Handbook says. Since you didn't indicate otherwise until now. Your Rule 0 isn't actually Rule 0, that's defined by the books. Your rule is something else, probably best called "Celebrum's Autocratic Rule" or something.

I have no idea where you got the idea that you had the right to over turn rule 0, but I perfectly agree that rule zero isn't carte blanche for the DM to jerk the chains of his players willy-nilly. It is however carte blanche to alter any rule at any time he feels is a appropriate. If the players feel like they are having thier chains jerked, it might (or might not) have been a bad decision but he was well within his rights to make it.

And thus you indicate that you have no idea that D&D (and FRPGs in general) are collaborative excercises. No one has carte blanche, on anything.

The PC's are fighting a minotaur in the outskirts of a circular hedge row labyrinth. The DM looks down and has the minotaur charge around the curve of the labyrinth, smashing into a player and doing terrible goring damage. The PC looks up and says, "You can't do that?" The DM says, "Huh? What do you mean?" He then picks up the player's handbook, and says, "Look, it says right here on page XX that you can only charge in straight lines." The DM says, "Yes, I know what it says, but that rule doesn't apply here. It's a gentle curving corridor. It's no more difficult to charge around than an oval track."

And that's a Jerk move by the DM. With a capital "J". Since you never bothered to tell the players that they could charge in gently curving oval routes. Springing it on them mid-stream (and demanding, like Cartman, that they respect his authoritah) is exactly the kind of thing that turns a DM into a jackass.

The player says, "Yeah, but you didn't put that in the house rules. I didn't know that we were playing that way. You are breaking the implied social contract." The DM thinks, "Implied social conract? What about the implied social contract that I'm running this game?", but instead says, "Look, the situation has never come up before. I'm sorry it didn't make it into the house rules but it was so obvious that it didn't mean perfectly straight and that it was obviously a judgement call that I never even thought to write it down." The PC says, "Well, I think that since I wasn't informed about your house rule, that it shouldn't apply. I thought we were playing D&D and not some game you just made up. In D&D charges can only occur in straight lines. It says so in the rules." The DM says, "Look, this is a judgement call. The rules can't cover every situation and there is no way that my house rules can cover every situation. This is a straight enough line for the purposes." The PC says, "Well, if I'd known that, I would have never taken that feat that let me make charges that weren't in a straight line. This isn't fair, you are nerfing my ability." The DM says, "No I'm not. I'm still not going to let normal monsters and characters make radical changes in direction during a charge." The PC says, "Still, my feat isn't worth as much as I thought it would, you should let me take a new one." The DM sighs and says, "Look, you used that feat several times last session to charge around 90 degree corners. I'm not letting you take back feat selections that you've already used." The PC says, "Well, then you shouldn't change the rules on charging." Another PC backs him up, "Well, I would have charged last round except I didn't think I could because the rules said only straight lines for charging." The DM says, "I'm sorry you were confused, but you should have asked. I've said before that you shouldn't rely on the rules to tell you what you should do because the rules don't cover everything that will come up in play. Instead, rely on your own understanding about how the real world works. In the real world, you can run flat out along a gentle curve without slowing down even if you aren't a remarkable athelete. " The 1st PC says, "That's beside the point. I agreed to play a game, and this is a game and in the rules of this game you can't run or charge except in a straight line..."

And the player is completely correct in your example. And the DM is being a jackass. And if you agree with the DM on this, then that says much about you, and they aren't good things. The DM said he was using the D&D rules, and the players are perfectly within their rights to expect that those rules will be used except where noted otherwise ahead of time.

In practice, the way of playing you are describing just doesn't work. I suspect that the group dynamics you are in are very different than the above, but I doubt that its because your DM gives all his house rules down on paper before you play the game.

Actually, it works quite well. The rules are clear, everyone understands what is going on, and what they can and cannot do. There are limited arguments because the DM (me in this case) isn't changing things on the players mid-stream without providing them with notice of changes. Unless a house rule is provided ahead of time, the rules work as written. It keeps arguments to a minimum, and keeps everyone up to speed about what the game we are playing actually is.

 

[Celebrim]

And that's a Jerk move by the DM. With a capital "J". Since you never bothered to tell the players that they could charge in gently curving oval routes. Springing it on them mid-stream (and demanding, like Cartman, that they respect his authoritah) is exactly the kind of thing that turns a DM into a jackass. And the player is completely correct in your example. And the DM is being a jackass. And if you agree with the DM on this, then that says much about you, and they aren't good things. The DM said he was using the D&D rules, and the players are perfectly within their rights to expect that those rules will be used except where noted otherwise ahead of time

I rest my case.

 

[DonTadow]

I think someone said it best when the main thing is to be consistent. There is no way, that anyone knows every rule in D and D. That is why WOTC refers to the core rule books as reference material (to refer to ). Every game I've played or Dm's has had rule challenged. I have no problem as a DM with someone pointing out to me something factual if i am doing something dead wrong. As a DM, I read the dmg and monstermanual faithfully, but I do not brush up on my PHB like thep layers do.

I make it a point to explain my campaign to each of my players. I screen my players to make sure that I am not inviting the Rules Lawyer into it. All players know that after game they are welcome to bring up anything disagreed upon and i will look it up further.

In game when something comes up the instance it comes up I make a decision and decide on it by looking up the rules and figuring out how I interpret the rules. Sometimes my player beats me to it in the book. At that point i read it decide and we go on with the game. I also write down what i ruled for CONSISTENCY. The player is welcome to disagree, at which we can research after game the rulling and I will admit if I was wrong or not. Barring the decisions did not kill the player, I will correct the ruling the next session. I don't let my games break for more than 2 minutes becuse ofa disagreement.

I disagree with the person whom said that all homerules should be made up before game. I don't know too many DMs whom do this and never make another homerule in game. I'm going through the fourth version of my homerules and primer in a year long campaign. Some things you can't predict and its not until ingame that you rule on something at times. A great example in my current campaign is my magic system. We're using the Elements of Magic (GREAT SYSTEM). As we have played it, I noticed things that did not fit in my campaign and needed to be changed.

I think when a DM does decide to vary from the rules he explains his action and why he is implenting it. The number one reason why players get mad at DMs for ruling is that the player feels as if he is not being heard or his idea is not important. The important thing as a DM for you to do is make sure that player knows that his opinion is important but in your campaign the rule does not make since and explain why.