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

[Celebrim]

For what it is worth, you are arguing Hobbs (Leviathan) vs. Locke (Two Treatises of Government) in it's most basic form. Celebrim is on the side of Hobbs in this debate, and those who disagree are on the side of Locke.

For what its worth, I side with Locke when it comes to government. The authority bestowed on DM's is far too much authority for any mortal if the things being arbitrated are more substantial than the fantasies involved in playing a RPG.

But reality already has an ultimate arbiter, whether you believe it to be the laws of physics or your favorite god, and the fantasy universe does not function well in my experience without some form of one because no set of rules is comprehensive, complete, and perfect. Hense the old saying, "The DM is god."

The really interesting thinig to me is that this sort of 'by the rules approach' appears to be an artifact of 3rd edition, because the rules have gotten good enough that they at least have the illusion of completeness. For example:

The only time I will create house rules during the game, is when a situation arises that is specifically not covered by the rules at all, which is pretty rare.

It's been a rare session in the history of my gaming were I (as the DM) or my DM (when I was a PC) didn't have to invent a rule on the spot, but apparantly there are now alot of groups that don't feel that this is really necessary. I suspect that the difference is simply that those groups have agreed to a less free-form, less open game, and all the players know the rules to some degree and so no one ever attempt things unless there is clearly a rule to cover it - nor does anyone generally question whether the rule is doing a good job.

What that means is that during the game, I (as the DM) will enforce the rules as written even when they don't make any sense.

Things like that are completely novel sentiments that I've never heard before, and seem to me more appropriate to running a tournament or competitive event in which every DM needs to be ruling in the same way than running a game with the goal of all parties having fun. That such a sentiment can be offered with a straight face is a testament IMO to just how good the D20 rules have gotten overall.

The only problem I have encountered with this way of thinking is the absolutely amazing things people consider (or at least SAY they consider) reasonable/unreasonable.

I've been fortunate. Although virtually every group of gamers I've ever played with has stories like this, I was my own DM through jr. and high school, and then all the groups I've been a PC in were extremely (well usually) mature and well run. I certainly believe you that you've seen DM authority abused though, and I'm not at all defending anyone that does it.

God, I love AoOs.

Me too, but for entirely different reasons. Back then, whenever a player wanted to do something to abuse the turn order like that, I had to convince them that they were drawing a 'riposte attack' (my name for it, drawn from my parry rules) in doing so even though there was absolutely nothing in the books to justify it and even though my own house rules on combat weren't in a very clear and easy to read state (several penciled pages of notes to myself). Generally speaking, this wasn't that difficult in the long run, because the PC's had been in combat with say a bunch of Zombies earlier that had tried to overwhelm them with grappling attacks (using the old ugly rules for unarmed combat, ugghhh) and had recieve free 'riposte attacks' on each zombie (I didn't have limits to how many you could recieve) as it lumbered forward.

Now, not only are the rules clearer, more comprehensive, easier to run, and better thought out than my house rules were, but they are right there in the books so that if some rules lawyer was to challenge me on it I'd could argue with him quite a bit before having to throw 'rule 0' in his face.

This situation also highlights some of the problems of older editions, since the rules didn't clearly spell out what should happen in this case.

I quit the older editions in disgust because there was so many common things that they just didn't handle, or more importantly didn't handle well. I played GURPS for a couple years without being completely happy (the rules were too complex, adventures too hard to prepare in advance). I fell in love with 3rd edition as soon as I read the PH.

But don't for a second think that the current rules are anything like comprehensive. There wouldn't be dozens and dozens of expansions and source books if they were. Ultimately though, its a false dream GM's get - like chasing a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - to have a fully comprehensive set of rules. It's just not possible and moreoever not even desirable because the result gets clumsier and clumsier.

 

[Seeten]

Not sure why not, because circumstance bonuses are not listed as available in the evasion/pursuit rules, only straight Dex or Con checks. Otherwise, if circumstance bonuses are available at all times, then there's little cause for debate - every DM I've ever seen uses them.

Favorable And Unfavorable Conditions

Some situations may make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the skill modifier for a skill check or a change to the DC of the skill check.

The chance of success can be altered in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances.

Give the skill user a +2 circumstance bonus to represent conditions that improve performance, such as having the perfect tool for the job, getting help from another character (see Combining Skill Attempts), or possessing unusually accurate information.

Give the skill user a -2 circumstance penalty to represent conditions that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information.

Reduce the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task easier, such as having a friendly audience or doing work that can be subpar.

Increase the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task harder, such as having an uncooperative audience or doing work that must be flawless.
Conditions that affect your character’s ability to perform the skill change the skill modifier. Conditions that modify how well the character has to perform the skill to succeed change the DC. A bonus to the skill modifier and a reduction in the check’s DC have the same result: They create a better chance of success. But they represent different circumstances, and sometimes that difference is important.

Its RAW. I dont disagree with your premise, that essentially, circumstance bonuses can "make up for" the armored sprinter vs olympic sprinter debate, just your presentation of the argument.

And thank you, I thought it was well said too. From listening to many of your comments on the boards, I feel comfortable saying I am quite sure I'd have fun playing with you, also. I dont know when the game stops being fun, for some of these other posters, and enters the realm we are currently treading on, but if they behaved this way at the game table, from either side, I'd move on.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I know these have been brought up, but I'll quote the actual SRD text to show that the racing example is covered under the rules. Knowing the rules means you don't have to make up house rules for these situations, you'll find the rules are fairly comprehensive and fair.

TACTICAL MOVEMENT
Use tactical movement for combat. Characters generally don’t walk during combat—they hustle or run. A character who moves his or her speed and takes some action is hustling for about half the round and doing something else the other half.

EVASION AND PURSUIT
In round-by-round movement, simply counting off squares, it’s impossible for a slow character to get away from a determined fast character without mitigating circumstances. Likewise, it’s no problem for a fast character to get away from a slower one.
When the speeds of the two concerned characters are equal, there’s a simple way to resolve a chase: If one creature is pursuing another, both are moving at the same speed, and the chase continues for at least a few rounds, have them make opposed Dexterity checks to see who is the faster over those rounds. If the creature being chased wins, it escapes. If the pursuer wins, it catches the fleeing creature.
Sometimes a chase occurs overland and could last all day, with the two sides only occasionally getting glimpses of each other at a distance. In the case of a long chase, an opposed Constitution check made by all parties determines which can keep pace the longest. If the creature being chased rolls the highest, it gets away. If not, the chaser runs down its prey, outlasting it with stamina.

The DM's Best Friend

A favorable circumstance gives a character a +2 bonus on a skill check (or a -2 modifier to the DC) and an unfavorable one gives a -2 penalty on the skill check (or a +2 modifier on the DC).

 

[farscapesg1]

I didn't read the whole thread (just the first couple pages and the last) but I wanted to answer the original post.

Our group has this same issue and it seems to really bog things down. Not only do several people want to go over the rules, but there is a lot of time spent on looking up rules. This is a result of many of us being either new to the game, or just new to 3.5 edition. Personally, I prefer having the DM make the call and discussing it afterwords either around the table or via email.

As to the idea that DM's have final call on everything, in general I agree with that. However, in the example of the Blink spell, I would be really ticked if I was playing the wizard. If my character knows both the Magic Missile spell and the Blink spell, then the character would know how they interact. It is the DM's right to make a call that there is a miss chance using Magic Missile against an opponent with Blink, but I should know this ahead of time. If the DM makes it up on the spot, then the character should get a Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check to realize this so they can cast a different spell or take another action instead. If the DM wants the Blink-protected character to survive, then a better reason needs to be given (a modified Blink spell, a Shield spell, or slightly more hit points than originally planned [since characters and players shouldn't know NPC hit point totals]).

I look at the rules as being there to provide a solid playing field. That way players know what can and can not be done. If there are changes to these rules, then they should be made available beforehand. This is really important when it comes to magic and the interaction between one magical effect and another.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hense the old saying, "The DM is god."

I think its fairly obvious by now that I really hate that saying.

The really interesting thinig to me is that this sort of 'by the rules approach' appears to be an artifact of 3rd edition, because the rules have gotten good enough that they at least have the illusion of completeness. For example:

I was like this in 2E. ^^; I was the guy that made a 2 weapon fighter and pointed out that Dex mitigated the penalty to wielding two weapons and such. Ahh 2E...

Of course, I wouldn't ever say that that was normal (or that I am for that matter).

It's been a rare session in the history of my gaming were I (as the DM) or my DM (when I was a PC) didn't have to invent a rule on the spot, but apparantly there are now alot of groups that don't feel that this is really necessary. I suspect that the difference is simply that those groups have agreed to a less free-form, less open game, and all the players know the rules to some degree and so no one ever attempt things unless there is clearly a rule to cover it - nor does anyone generally question whether the rule is doing a good job.

It really does cover a lot. Many many times when someone thinks something isn't covered in the rules, it actually is. Not always, oh definately not always. There are no rules for pulling rugs out from under people, for example, that I'm aware of. At the same time, thoug, if someone replies to me that there are in this little hidden section of the DMG, I won't be surprised that it exists.

My games are probably less free-form than yours, though. I would say 3E doesn't encourage free-form activities because it is often difficult to pull them off. It isn't an extremely "cinematic" game, because as soon as you try to go too far out of bound (swinging from chandeliers, pulling rugs out from people, etc) these things are very difficult to succeed at or involve multiple rolls of different skills/abilities.

Things like that are completely novel sentiments that I've never heard before, and seem to me more appropriate to running a tournament or competitive event in which every DM needs to be ruling in the same way than running a game with the goal of all parties having fun. That such a sentiment can be offered with a straight face is a testament IMO to just how good the D20 rules have gotten overall.

The system has definately gotten good, but this also has to do with the fact that when you start considering science things get really wonky, so you just suspend your disbelief and move on. One of my favorite examples of this is firing bows in the rain and leaving them strung at all times. It's not something that works in real life, but its IMO best to just hand-wave this away. Since the rules don't say you can't do these things, it is best left as is for the sake of gameplay.

I've been fortunate. Although virtually every group of gamers I've ever played with has stories like this, I was my own DM through jr. and high school, and then all the groups I've been a PC in were extremely (well usually) mature and well run. I certainly believe you that you've seen DM authority abused though, and I'm not at all defending anyone that does it.

Most people here are probably fortunate, as we're still playing, and in fact thinking about role playing a lot as we come to these forums. Oh, yes, we have different theories and ideas about how the game should be played out. And, we can get testy about our own little soap-boxes and philosophies occasionally. But, we all love it or we wouldn't be here. I think that should be noted in this thread.

 

[Mistwell]

I think most of this debate comes down to the experience level of the participants - with the game, and with each other.

1) If based on prior games I *KNOW* my DM will maintain entertainment as the highest priority, and I *KNOW* they know what they are doing after years of experience dealing with vague or unwritten rule-creation on the fly, then I tend to find in those situations that Celbrim's method works best (of letting the DM make all decisions concerning the rules without discussion during the game). The game flows better, the ability to engage in the fantasy experience without the distraction of rules works better, and overall I have found my role playing experience is best in these situations. I'll call this the Benevolent Experienced Dictator situation ("BED").

2) However, if I do not know my DM very well, or my DM does not have a great deal of DM'ing experience, I prefer the other method. That being: RAW plus previously-agreed-on house rules, and immediate (though short) discussion from all interested participants if a new rule on the fly is required. New rules on the fly should be agreed on by at least a majority of interested participants in such situations, not just the DM, however the DM should act as the arbitrator and mediator of the discussion, and break any ties. I'll call this the Inexperienced Democratic Abitrator-Mediator ("IDAM").

Folks are lucky if they find themselves in the BED situation. However, unfortunately, I am guessing that the second situation is more common than the first. People switch off being DMs, gaming groups come apart and morph in who is playing and when, experience levels vary from person to person within the group, and some people who have a lot of experience still don't prioritize entertainment as the most important factor. That's why, in a majority of situations, I think most players prefer the IDAM method. It's better at protecting fairness in those kinds of situations.

 

[Celebrim]

However, in the example of the Blink spell, I would be really ticked if I was playing the wizard.

For the record, I might have been too. But, if my original objection was ignored, I think I would have shrugged it off unless...

a) the missiles actually did miss

and

b) the party failed to defeat the evil wizard and/or lost a character in the fight as a result of the missiles failing to connect.

Until that point, neither of which are gauranteed, its just too minor to be bothered by. And even if I was bothered by it, I probably would have held off making a strong protest until we got up from the table and I could do so without bringing the game to a halt and/or being overly confrontational.

Since I've never before said how I think the situation should be handled, let me make it clear that I wouldn't have made the call the DM made in the first place. But, let's just assume for the sake of argument that I think that it's fair that blink provides a 20% miss chance (per missile maybe) versus force effects if the caster cannot see invisible or ethereal creatures and that I care enough about it to bring it up. In that case, if the player objected to it on the grounds that if he had known that he would have done something differently (what, I don't know, since even with a 20% miss chance, magic missile would still be one of the best things to cast in this case), I would probably allow the character to take back the action because the argument that the spellcaster - if he has several ranks of spellcraft - should have known that there was a miss chance even though the character didn't is very reasonable and compelling. So, I would have simply said, "Ok, sorry, I should have told you I was mulling this before we started play tonight, but I thought if I specifically mentioned that I wanted to change the way the blink spell worked it would give way part of the night's adventure. Anyway, what's your new plan?"

That would be a pretty interesting question I think, because I'm courious what someone might have done different if they'd known about the 20% miss chance.

 

[Celebrim]

I think its fairly obvious by now that I really hate that saying.

LOL. Yes. In fact, its been clear to me that you would hate that saying since your very first post in this thread. I will say though that of all the people that strongly disagree with my approach - and there doesn't seem to be anyone with a stronger objection than you - you've been by far the most emminently reasonable about it despite your strong objection.

 

[Henry]

50% miss, actually. It's 20% for the person blinking.

That would be a pretty interesting question I think, because I'm courious what someone might have done different if they'd known about the 20% miss chance.

FIREBALL, BABY! Ain't no way the hoppity little punk is going to avoid me, even if I have to take damage!

 

[werk]

One of the things that strikes me here is that I would prefer to game with mature adults who are playing for the same reason I am: To have fun...

To quote Patrick Swayze in the cinematic epic Roadhouse: "You are too stupid to have a good time."

That sounded bad, not you Seeten

But seriously, I think some people play third edition so they can argue rule interpretation and application. I've played with some 'experienced gamers' that couldn't roleplay their way out of a paper bag, but play 3 or more times every week...they were also the ones that train-wreck a good game because "he can't do that" or "how?". In my experience, those are also the people that try to take 3 actions on their turn just to see if people notice and call them out on it. They don't want to game, but they are having a good time. (I hate them)

Most of us are geeks, social aptitude and interpersonal communication are not necessarily our strong suit...we try, but lack the tools sometimes.

I believe this is a great thread topic, because I never had any of these problems in 2e or previous like I've had since we started 3e. 3e seems predisposed to argument, either because the amount and complexity of the rules and how they interact or because of the 'gray areas' they create. (and don't get me started on non-core books)

So for the thread topic: In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?
I think this thread says...it depends on the dispute and a lot of conditional variables.