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

[IcyCool]

I would say that a better example would be that you stop for 3 seconds, but the police officer pulls you over any way. He explains to you that even though you did stop for 3 seconds, he thinks it should actually be a requirement to stop for 5 seconds, no matter what the law actually says, because it makes for better traffic flow in his opinion. He arrests you and puts you in jail because you only stopped for 3 seconds.

Would you complain? Would you be unreasonable to expect the cop to follow the law?

I'd like to use this example to try and illustrate the difference in our opinions, Storm Raven.

You believe that the law is the higher authority in this situation, and I believe that the officer is. (Figuratively speaking, of course)

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Ahh, but you see it is my contention that a house rule the players don't know will almost never aid the PCs. Thus, this is simply a DM tool to get the edge on the players. It's a way for the DM to slide around the rules in order to get an edge for whatever reason the DM is doing it. Because, it does in fact give the DM an edge over the players, and I see nothing in examples anywhere showing that it does not.

I am a rules-lawyer pretty much. I know the rules and I follow the rules. When the DM makes a mistake I point it out. When a player makes a mistake, I point it out. Heck, I have pointed out mistakes that have gotten other players killed before.

 

[IcyCool]

Heck, I have pointed out mistakes that have gotten other players killed before.

Holy cow! Your gaming group is awfully violent. How did the player die?

 

[Celebrim]

Don't tell me that the above scenario is not the same as a DM changing things to suit himself willy-nilly, without telling the player beforehand.

Ok, I won't. But I will tell you that you should probably think about what really offends you in the example you're giving.*

For example, what if the law required you to stop 5 seconds at a stop light, and you only stopped for 3. If the cop thought to himself, "You know, I can tell the driver is obviously were in control of the vehical, and brought his car to a complete stop. I'm going to let him pass." would you be equally offended?

The point of the law is to be fair. If the law isn't fair, then its not a good law. Besides which, there are a number of reasons why the rules of an RPG and the civil and criminal laws of a community are a bad analogy. Ooopps.. I said I wouldn't tell you that.

*Hint: The word in question begins with 'f' and ends with 'r'.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Holy cow! Your gaming group is awfully violent. How did the player die?

Umm... <_< d4s were involved... yeah... >_>

 

[Celebrim]

Ahh, but you see it is my contention that a house rule the players don't know will almost never aid the PCs.

Well, its my contention that you are wrong, because as a DM you are always under more pressure to rule in favor of your PC's than your NPC's because well, your NPC's don't care when they've been treated unfairly and don't make arguments in thier favor. But, if in your experience its always been true that 'spontaneous house rules' always help the NPC's and not the PC's, then my guess is the real reason you've become a rules lawyer is you've been burned by too many DM's abusing thier authority.

Simply put, you've probably encountered a least one DM that is an egotistical maniac and so the idea of a DM with absolute power scares the beejesus out of you. Whereas, I've only heard about these sort of DM's from groups I've been in that said, "Man you should have been here when X was the DM...." and versus funny stories about the abuse they recieved from the DM's pet NPC foils were related.

I would refer to you to an earlier point in the thread where I put forth assertion that knowing the rules was an hinderance to many players, because they never tried things because they didn't think that they could be done. I would put forward that a person who had never played D&D before, would run around an oval track and never once worry about the fact that he was breaking the rules because it was obvious to him that people did things like that.

And certainly it isn't your contention that realisticly ordinary runners slow down by 50% when going through the gentle curve of a track, is it? Don't you run into any versimilitude issues when the rules are so obviously not equatable with what actually happens in real life?

 

[Caeleddin]

Celebrim - Pity fool that tries to be witty instead of laying out his argument in a logical, coherent manner. He thinks he is smart, but being the loudest vessel, one can only presume that he is the emptiest one.


Nothing you have said has convinced me that you are a good DM by any measure. Your arrogant and rude responses to arguments and criticisms here show that you are the stereotypical "power-tripping" DM.

You are NOT God. Get over yourself, please.

You have a world. So what? All of us have one. Without players, what are they?

When one plays a game, ANY game, one expects rules to be followed and those rules known before hand. Soccer, football, cricket, badminton, tennis, Monopoly, yes, even RPGs. Either you tell the players so they understand the rules and can act accordingly, or you don't use those rules.

"Oh, didn't I tell you? There is no gravity in this world."
"What do you mean you hit? No you don't. Laws of physics in this world is states that you always miss if you aim straight. Didn't I tell you? Too bad!"

If the sole purpose of you being a DM is to make up new rules at every turn in order to maim the players, you are power-tripping. By definition, you are a bad DM. Deal with it.

Then again, it seems that expecting honour, decency and fairness of others is too high an expectation for me to have these days.

 

[IcyCool]

Celebrim - Pity fool that tries to be witty instead of laying out his argument in a logical, coherent manner. He thinks he is smart, but being the loudest vessel, one can only presume that he is the emptiest one.

Yay! A witty comment to prove you are right! Truly the arguement is won!

Nothing you have said has convinced me that you are a good DM by any measure. Your arrogant and rude responses to arguments and criticisms here show that you are the stereotypical "power-tripping" DM.

You are NOT God. Get over yourself, please.

Straw man, meet straw woman. Make babies.

Snarkiness aside, I don't see where those arguements were made. Could you point them out please?

Then again, it seems that expecting honour, decency and fairness of others is too high an expectation for me to have these days.

Do you trust your DM?

What if he started a new campaign with a new game system but didn't tell you what it was. Would you still trust him?

Do you honestly think a DM should not be free to make rules? What about rule-calls?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Simply put, you've probably encountered a least one DM that is an egotistical maniac and so the idea of a DM with absolute power scares the beejesus out of you. Whereas, I've only heard about these sort of DM's from groups I've been in that said, "Man you should have been here when X was the DM...." and versus funny stories about the abuse they recieved from the DM's pet NPC foils were related.

Sadly, I never get to play. When I stared, I was DM. It was... hmm... 10 years? 12 years? before I actually got to make a PC and actually play in a campaign. And that only lasted around six months and then I was back in the DM's chair.

I would refer to you to an earlier point in the thread where I put forth assertion that knowing the rules was an hinderance to many players, because they never tried things because they didn't think that they could be done. I would put forward that a person who had never played D&D before, would run around an oval track and never once worry about the fact that he was breaking the rules because it was obvious to him that people did things like that.

Why does he have to Charge? Why can't he just hustle up to the enemy and attack him? Must he get the bonuses for Charging?

And certainly it isn't your contention that realisticly ordinary runners slow down by 50% when going through the gentle curve of a track, is it? Don't you run into any versimilitude issues when the rules are so obviously not equatable with what actually happens in real life?

It might not be 50% A 90% reduction in speed might be enough to prevent Charge bonuses. We don't know. I like to make my flavor match the rules and not the other way around because it leads to more consistancy. I don't like rules changes mid-session because it is difficult to figure out just how these rules changes will affect the game. So, I don't run into believablity problems because I start with the assumption that the rules are right and alter how I describe things to fit in those rules. He can hustle down the corridor, flailing his axe and strike a PC just fine. He just doesn't get +2 to hit and -2 to AC.

 

[Mistwell]

Ok, I won't. But I will tell you that you should probably think about what really offends you in the example you're giving.*

For example, what if the law required you to stop 5 seconds at a stop light, and you only stopped for 3. If the cop thought to himself, "You know, I can tell the driver is obviously were in control of the vehical, and brought his car to a complete stop. I'm going to let him pass." would you be equally offended?

The point of the law is to be fair. If the law isn't fair, then its not a good law. Besides which, there are a number of reasons why the rules of an RPG and the civil and criminal laws of a community are a bad analogy. Ooopps.. I said I wouldn't tell you that.

*Hint: The word in question begins with 'f' and ends with 'r'.

Sticking to the analogy (though I agree it isn't a great one), the rule of criminal enforcement is that you can error on the side of the alleged offender, but you cannot err on the side of a more stringent law. In other words, you could let someone off for stopping only 3 seconds under a 5 second law, but you cannot charge someone with the offense of not stopping for 5 seconds if the law says it is 3 seconds.

Similarly, if a law changes to make a penalty harsher, the harsher penalty cannot apply retroactively to a person who committed a crime under the prior law. However, if a law changes to become more lenient, it can often be used to reduce a penalty already applied to a person who committed a crime under the prior law. This basic legal concept is enbodied in the Ex Post Facto Clause(s) of the US Constitution, and encompass "[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed." (sorry for the actual legalise - my lawyer side is coming out). Ex Post Facto is a legal issue of fairness that is found in virtually every Democratic nation on the planet.

Making this more about D&D - I think a DM should either stick to the rules as written plus the previously announced house rules, OR (at their option) a more player-favoravble version of the rule on the fly. However, the DM should not change the rules on the fly in a less player-favorable manner. Changing rules without notice concerning an ability, a spell, an action, an inaction, or similar choice previously made by the player should never go to the detriment of a player.

Informed choice is a basic concept of the D&D player. If you take away some of that informed choice, you are taking away an essential role of the player and making it more of a role for the DM. Even worse, it violates a basic issue of fairness that's pretty universally accepted around the world (the concept of no ex post facto rulings).