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

[IcyCool]

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.

Odd, I'd have tossed the whiny player from my game session. Afterwards I'd have spoken to the player about it, and if he still wanted to be a whiny git about it, he can find himself a new game. Unless my players are paying me, what I say goes. That statement isn't borne out of a desire to order my friends around, it's there because game will run nice and smooth without constant player interruptions and arguements. I don't know if you've ever played in a game where no rules disputes come up in-game, but I can tell you that I find it preferrable. I'm GMing because I want to have fun. Long, nitpicking arguements about the rules are NOT fun for me in the middle of game. I have my doubts that the other players find it all that fun either.

On a slightyly related note, did you go by the name "Polaris" over on the www.dumpshock.com boards?

Now, an excellent question was brought up by Storm Raven and Celebrim's discussion; what DO you expect when you're playing by the "D&D rules"?

I think a more interesting discussion might be brought about by asking, "What do you expect when you're playing D&D?"

I expect only the least: The iconic six attributes, a range of classes and races to choose from, feats, skills, and equipment for my character, and the use of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Saves. That's pretty much it. I'd like to know any house rules ahead of time, but I'm also open enough to allow for them on-the-fly. I do this because no person is perfect, and no one can know all rules at all times.

However, if I DO know a rule is changed, as Celebrim noted, then that rule should not change between now and the time I take advantage of it. If so, then I have the right to accept it, or find another game. I have never met a DM that was so inconsistent that this occurred, though.

I'm in 100% agreement.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, I told you back at the beginning of the thread that we disagreed on too fundamental of a level to even bother arguing. I can't imagine wanting to play your way as either a PC or a DM. You can't imagine wanting to play mine. I don't understand what you think your way accomplishes, and you probably don't understand what I think my way accomplishes. To a certain extent I'm stunned that anyone actually plays that way and that their groups manage to remain functional. How could you possibly tell a group of PC's that they couldn't run around a curved track just because the rules say that they couldn't? My PC's would be talking about a coup if I made alot of arbitrary rulings like that.

Because it isn't an arbitrary rule. The arbitrary rule is the one that says "you can charge around a curved track because I said so now, but didn't bother to tell you before".

 

[Storm Raven]

No, quite the contrary. One rests one's case when its clear that one has won, and that further argument would only obscure the point that you've just made. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect that the whole point of my line of reasoning is now clearly revealed.

And the ridiculous nature of your argument has been exposed. Which indicates to me that you have conceeded defeat, but your autocratic tendencies prevent you from being able to actually do that. So you claim victory when you have no actual rebuttal of any value.

I suspect that's why you DM like you say you do. You can't handle disagreement. Therefore, you turn into a bad pardoy of Cartman screaming "respect mah authoritah" whenever a player disagrees with your pontifications from Mount Sinai.

 

[IcyCool]

These were rules based issues that aggrivated me to no end but the real reason I quit was that his style of running a game was totally disorganized. He relied on random encounters to drive the sessions. We had nights when nothing happened at all and other nights when we had to wait for 1-1/2 hours while he made up the stats for his random encounter that he had just rolled up.

His game sounds like it was poorly run, but I suspect that you would have had much more fun if you had stopped worrying or complaining about everyone else's characters and focused on yours. I'm not trying to flame or insult. But every thing you stated as an issue was about someone else's character.

A GAME IS NOT ABOUT THE RULES BUT IN HOW WELL PEOPLE GAME TOGETHER AND RESPECT EACH OTHER. If the game is not fun then people will not play.

I would add a clarifying point to this by stating that you are referring to a roleplaying game. I can play Monopoly with someone I don't respect.

One last thing irdeggman, is the Birthright CS 3.5 yet? That is truly my favorite D&D setting, and you guys did some cool stuff with the 3.0 CS.

 

[Storm Raven]

Odd, I'd have tossed the whiny player from my game session.

So, you would toss people who expect that you will be playing by the D&D rules when you said you would be playing by the D&D rules? It seems to me that would make them the lucky ones. At the very least, they won't be feeding your megalomanical power fantasies any more.

Afterwards I'd have spoken to the player about it, and if he still wanted to be a whiny git about it, he can find himself a new game. Unless my players are paying me, what I say goes.

A common, and quite asinine attitude among DMs who just aren't any good. The players are showing up to play. They are as critical to the game as you are, and to expect that they will bow down to your magnificence because you are standing behind the DM screen is a sign of a DM who has no real confidence in his abilities.

That statement isn't borne out of a desire to order my friends around, it's there because game will run nice and smooth without constant player interruptions and arguements.

Yes, and the game runs nice and smooth with no rule disagreements when the DM isn't changing things mid-stream. You see, when you actually use the rules that people expect to be used, you have very few disagreements or arguments over random changes made on the fly.

I don't know if you've ever played in a game where no rules disputes come up in-game, but I can tell you that I find it preferrable.

The only games I have been in where there were long nitpicking arguments about the rules were ones in which the DM ignored the rules as written on a regular basis without giving advance warning. The games where the rules were followed resulted in virtually no disagreements, arguments, or nitpicking.

I'm GMing because I want to have fun. Long, nitpicking arguements about the rules are NOT fun for me in the middle of game. I have my doubts that the other players find it all that fun either.

Using the rules as written unless otherwise specified has the effect of eliminating long nitpicking arguments about the rules. Try it some time.

On a slightyly related note, did you go by the name "Polaris" over on the www.dumpshock.com boards?

No. I had never even heard of dumpshock until your post.

 

[IcyCool]

And the ridiculous nature of your argument has been exposed. Which indicates to me that you have conceeded defeat, but your autocratic tendencies prevent you from being able to actually do that. So you claim victory when you have no actual rebuttal of any value.

I suspect that's why you DM like you say you do. You can't handle disagreement. Therefore, you turn into a bad pardoy of Cartman screaming "respect mah authoritah" whenever a player disagrees with your pontifications from Mount Sinai.

What about the nature of Celebrim's arguement is ridiculous? And are you trying to get the thread locked? The Cartman comments are particularly ... silly.

 

[Storm Raven]

His game sounds like it was poorly run, but I suspect that you would have had much more fun if you had stopped worrying or complaining about everyone else's characters and focused on yours. I'm not trying to flame or insult. But every thing you stated as an issue was about someone else's character.

Everyone else in the campaign gets to play half-celestial elves. You get to play a blind, deaf, mute kobold with no hands or legs. There are no level adjustments, or other modifications to take into account the difference in character ability.

Don't worry about the other characters, worry about your own. Having fun?

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, you have yet to show a situation where a House Rule unknown to a player actually will benefit them. Even your own example showed PCs who were upset and the House Rule only hindered their ability and fun! How does this help your case?

I rather deliberately made it a case where the house rule helped the NPC's, because I knew that rules lawyers (no offense intended, consider it pay back for all the times I've been called a Stalinist dictator so far) would immediately side with the PC's. If I had have made it a case where the DM's judgement helped the PC's, then the rules lawyers might have smelled a trap and deftly avoided it in a way that would make it difficult to prove thier hypocracy.

But now that I've got the rules lawyers to buy hook line and sinker into the argument that its unreasonable to be able to run around an oval track and any DM that allowed that is being a total jerk (and worse things), then I think it ought to be completely apparant to everyone that the rules lawyers are being rules lawyers.

There is of course absolutely no reason why the person wanting to charge or run on a slightly curving path couldn't be a PC, and I would rule exactly the same way regardless because in real life we all know that its reasonable to be able to run in a gently curving path because we've all done it at one point or the other. And if the rules lawyers argue that its only appropriate to change the rules midstream when it helps the PC's, then their hypocracy is only shown more clearly.

And since they've made thier point so clearly and rudely, that they can't go back on it now that the trap is sprung. So as far as I'm concerned, I've won.

Lastly, I think I now finally understand why some players claim that they prefer 1st edition. This would have never occured in earlier editions because the rules were looser and so much more was left up to DM judgement. I suspect alot of players and DM's would be frustrated by how hidebound the game feels if there are people in the party treating the rules as some here have suggested.

 

[DonTadow]

That's not what is being said. What is being said is that the DM should inform players of house rules ahead of time, and not change the rules from the rules as written mid-stream. If you want to introduce a house rule mid-campaign, then you should do it between sessions, make clear what the change is, and then determine if there is consensus. Players affected by the rule change should have input on the change - it is their game too (despite what Celebrum seems to think).

My apologies. I fully agree with that flow of logic. As I said, I have updated my homerules and primer a few times and I always talk to my players before I do so. I know every dm doesnt have the time to do it, but I have website that is primarily for my PCs. I have several threads for rule changes so i can discuss with them if it works and if it doesnt. For isntance, I just implemented spell components into my campaign "to balance out some things in EOM" but I didnt want to make it unfair to the magic users. By talking with them I got there feedback and all they wanted was the ability to find components on enemies. Talking with my pcs helped me make a good bargain between them.

 

[Storm Raven]

What about the nature of Celebrim's arguement is ridiculous?

The part where he maintains that player's shouldn't be annoyed when a DM acts like a jerk. And that the player's are somehow in the wrong for having the temerity to question the DM when he alters the game mid-stream. And the fact that he thinks he's proven some sort of point that backs up his argument.

And are you trying to get the thread locked?

No.

The Cartman comments are particularly ... silly.

That's the image he projects. A petty tyrant screaming about how you have to respect his power and authority, who brooks no disagreement.