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

[Bront]

For us, We go for a bit of research, DM makes final call, and we move on, but allow for discussion after if needed. If we made a mistake, we change it next time to the correct rule (Unless GM says "This is how we do it"). Outside of one game (And that was mostly one player) it flows fairly well, and results in very little issues between players and/or GMs.

 

[Telas]

You run a sorceror as a player, and choose (as one of your limited selection of spells known) Mage Armor.

On first casting Mage Armor your DM says that Mage Armor carries a spell failure chance equal to chain mail.

When you as player ask to then switch spells known to something else, your DM says no, because you already chose that spell and cannot switch it.

So, in the minds of some of the DMs here, this is perfectly acceptable? There is no implied contract of basic fairness in a D&D game? No social contract at all?

I don't believe anyone here referred to it as "acceptable". I referred to it as his right. It's his campaign/game/table, he can do with it as he wishes.

And if he did something like that to me, he'd have to find another player.

Telas

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I prefer to think of it as players trying to do something and finding that they can.

I think that works fine so long as you're playing in a "Modern guy falls through a portal into an unknown realm, where things are very different from the world he knew before" kind of game.

I don't think it works well in a game where the PCs are inhabitants of that world from birth to game start. After all, in the "real world," I've got a pretty good idea of how far I can jump given a running start, I've seen a world-record longjump, and I've studied physics. I have a basic understanding of how the world works. I've got a more than basic understanding of how certain parts of the world work.

I expect my PCs, under most circumstances, to have no less. They should know how far they can jump (from both standing and running starts), they should know whether or not magic works, and, if they've studied magic all of their lives, they should have a pretty good idea of what it can or can't do. This doesn't preclude them from running into things they don't understand - like me running accidentally into an Organic Chemistry class - but they aren't completely naive, either.

 

[Celebrim]

A player isn't going to attempt it because they think its impossible.

It comes down to this; all of your examples just show me that your knowledge of the rules are a hinderance to you, because as far as you seem to know they just tell you what you can't do. Whereas a player that doesn't know the rules doesn't know that it is 'impossible' to run over and jump on his horse. He might well be advised to ask first, or at least ask how difficult it would be, but his idea of how to play the game isn't limited by his knowledge of the rules.

I don't think it works well in a game where the PCs are inhabitants of that world from birth to game start. After all, in the "real world," I've got a pretty good idea of how far I can jump given a running start, I've seen a world-record longjump, and I've studied physics. I have a basic understanding of how the world works. I've got a more than basic understanding of how certain parts of the world work...

Quite the contrary, I think that that isn't a contridiction of what I said, but rather precisely my point. I expect my player's to act like this is the 'real world' until they learn differently, because for the most part its going to work like the real world and where it doesn't I expect them to understand that it works like a movie or a fantasy novel. I expect them to have a pretty good idea of how far people can jump because they've jumped ordinary jumps and seen world-record long jumps. I expect them to learn how far they can jump by experience, I expect those jumps to conform to thier expectations, and if they need to know how far their character can jump and don't I expect them to ask. I expect them to already have a basic understanding of how the world works, and I expect them to draw upon that understanding and not an understanding of the rules. Rules can be highly limiting to the imagination because there is no way a set of rules can cover every possible situation that could occur in the real world. I don't want players thinking that the rules cover all that can be done.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I expect them to already have a basic understanding of how the world works, and I expect them to draw upon that understanding and not an understanding of the rules. Rules can be highly limiting to the imagination because there is no way a set of rules can cover every possible situation that could occur in the real world. I don't want players thinking that the rules cover all that can be done.

Except, of course, that in gaming, the rules *do* determine the way the world works.

 

[Celebrim]

Except, of course, that in gaming, the rules *do* determine the way the world works.

No. The way the world works determines the rules.

 

[hazardjsimpson]

Draconic!

The DM has no responcibility to tell the players the rules. The DM has no responcibility to even tell the player's what rules system they are playing. The DM's sole responcibility is to entertain the players. If the DM does that, then the DM has succeeded. If the DM fails at that, it doesn't matter what rules his using or how closely he's sticking to them.

If I rule something, and you tell me, "This is the rules. They are not guideslines, they are rules.", I'll tell you immediately to go find your own table to run because I have no interest in you being at mine. I'm been a DM for 20 years now. When I'm in the middle of running a campaign, I may be putting 20-30 hours a week into the endeavor and I don't need some immature rules lawyer back seat driving my game and telling me that I've got to follow Monte's or Skip's or anyone elses preferences for how the game should work. If you don't like it, go somewhere else and find a DM that will put up with your social contract. I don't need to beg people to play in my games.

I do not have time nor interest in teaching everyone all my house rules before we begin play, nor for that matter do I have the time or inclination to throughly go through the books and write all my opinions down. But that is irrelevant to being able to play at my table. When I start up my next campaign this summer, I'm likely to give players a 100 page hand out (about 70 pages are complete already) just on character creation but I don't do so that the player's will know what rules that they will be playing under. I do so solely to help inspire the players to create more interesting characters, and it will be easier on me if they know what at least some of thier options are.

The rules are for the DM. The rules are not for the PC's. It makes a DM's life easier if the PC's know at least some of the rules pertaining to thier character, but it's not at all a necessary condition for play. The DM is the PC's sole interface with the world, and it is the world that the PC's interface with - not the rules. The players don't really need to interface with the rules at all any more than a player playing Neverwinter Nights needs to know the details of the C++ that it is written in.

I disagree, not only as a 10+ year GM of my current group, but as a player in another full time session, and psych major as well. The fact is that when you're playing a game (D&D) that publishes a set of rules, those are the rules for everyone, period. If you all go buy the same book and they say the same things, those are rules. Those become an agreed upon contract that everyone follows. If you decide that they're "guidlines" and what to change them, fine, but you're not playing D&D anymore, and it's total BS to claim that it is. Once you change those rules as a DM, you are changing a set of understandings that everyone at the table agrees upon when showing up to play. Saying that the DM "has no responsibility" smacks of flat-out rudeness, frankly. Do you just make up your own rules on the fly when you play basketball/baseball/anything else? Do you tend to just add math however you like because you want to? Probably not, because then you'd have the same problem: no one's on the same page.

It's a DM's right to change rules, sure. But last I checked, D&D was a social game, and the "I Am all Powerful" rule doesn't feel very social. I'm not a rules lawyer myself, but our group has an easy way to solve disputes : we freaking GET ALONG AND RESPECT EACH OTHER and everything works out. We don't have any "I Rule All" types in the group, and House Rules are a group effort that get written up on our board (we have our own website, ala EnWorld for our local group) so we can all see and post on them. From the way you post, you obviously don't have respect for your players, because you're too concerned about YOU as DM. It seems that your group misses what mine enjoys: respect.

If fact, much of your post seems to be about why YOU don't want to bother with "teaching" people, making handouts etc -- Frankly, the more I teach D&D, the more people learn and love the game. Maybe that just makes me a nicer person, but there's nothing wrong with that.

With your attitude towards your players, I'm *suprised* you don't have problems finding people to play in your games. I sure wouldn't play with you as DM, and don't know anyone in my 2 groups who would. I suspect they probably don't know anyone/where else to play, and more's the pity for them.

In closing, I do agree that it's the DM's job to entertain. But I as a player enjoy knowing the rules and the world my PC exists in, and the limitations thereof. As someone else posted, it's only reasonable to expect that a PC will have the same knowledge about their world that we do our own -- and to just undermine that willy nilly is ridiculous. If you want to run a heavy-handed Dm style and find that works for you, great -- just don't try to sell it to us that know better.

p.s. -- I've been gaming over 20+ years myself, starting with Rolemaster, AD&D 1st, 2nd Ed D&D, Traveller, Star Frontiers, TMNT, you name it. Never once have I had a DM just toss the rules at will and have it work for the group, nor have I ever installed house rules without telling the PC's first. "Forewarned is fore-arrmed" so to speak, and the PC's deserve, even have the RIGHT to know when things have changed. To pull "this spell just suddenly doesn't work like that because I'm the DM" is immature and disrespectful.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No. The way the world works determines the rules.

I disagree, in a chicken and egg sort of way.

Consider, for the moment, the Jump skill.

An average guy can jump 10 feet with a running start.

The world's greatest jumper, however, can easily clear 20 feet from a standing start.

I should know - without needing to ask the DM - about where my character falls in between those extremes. Why? Because my character has presumably spent the past 15-20 years growing up in this world. He should know how far he can reasonably jump.

Do your players get character sheets at all when they play with you? Or do they have to trial-and-error everything?

 

[Celebrim]

The fact is that when you're playing a game (D&D) that publishes a set of rules, those are the rules for everyone, period. If you all go buy the same book and they say the same things, those are rules. Those become an agreed upon contract that everyone follows. If you decide that they're "guidlines" and what to change them, fine, but you're not playing D&D anymore, and it's total BS to claim that it is.

It's amusing how much you sound like the much derided introduction to the 1st edition DMG. By golly, everyone better play like Col. Pladoh or else you aren't playing D&D! I wonder how much in practice you actually followed that if in fact you've been playing for 20 years.

So according to you, if I made a change in the way Harm worked in 3rd edition, then I was no longer playing D&D, but miracously when 3.5 came out I was playing D&D again? Yeah. Right.

I think I'm just going to keep on making up rules on the fly, and not go off on a pop psychology trip, because I'm a lot better at the former than I am at the latter and I wouldn't want to make quite as much of a fool of myself as some people that do that.

 

[moritheil]

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 play with 10 players. I cannot allow one person to tie up 11 peoples' time. If we're uncertain about a ruling, I'll ask others (the group is mostly veteran gamers, and includes several DMs). Then I make a decision. Life moves on.