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

[Celebrim]

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

Ok, fine. Look at it this way. The reason we as game referees adopt a particular set of rules in the first place is because we have a particular vision of how the world should work. That vision is largely informed by some other experience, whether its having a world that works internally like the Star Wars movies, or having a world that feels 'realistic' to some degree. We choose which game system to play according to what we feel best fits the vision we have for the story. We make tradeoffs between complexity and ease of play for the sake of implementing that vision.

Consider, for the moment, the Jump skill.

If the rules for the jump skill don't give the numbers that we desire for our vision, usually because for some range of 'normal' numbers they don't give results that agree with are expectations about what is 'realistic', then we adopt a new jump resolution system or we adopt a whole new game system is jump is important enough to us.

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

Is an assumption about how the world should work. If the jump rules generate really odd results for average guys jumping (too far, too short, too random) then we are probably going to dump that rule and try to find a better.

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

And again, that is the assumption about how you want your world to work. If the rules set indicates that the world's greatest jumper can only clear 4 feet, or they indicate that a non-super character can jump 200 ft., or worse yet that some of the time he jumps 4 feet and other times 200 ft and its far too random to predict, then you are probably going to think that they aren't very good rules and find different ones. You do that because the world dictates the rules. You have some idea about what the rules are supposed to be doing for you. I dare say that there are very few DM's that just say, 'Well the rules are the rules. They don't make any sense to me but I'm going to use them anyway.' I dare say that for all your protesting that the rules determine the world, you don't act that way. You don't say to your players, "Well, it says here that the worlds best long distance runner can only go 3 miles in 24 hours, so there is no way you can get away from the volcano in time." You don't say that because you aren't a slave to the rules.

Therefore the rules are slaved to you.

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.

Sure. And he does. Even if you the player don't. And you the player only need to ask once. Whether I say, "Page 70 of the player's handbook", or "I use D20 Modern for jump rules" or whether I say, "The official rules are crap, take a look at these." is entirely up to me.

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

You know, I actually did play once with a DM that didn't let the player's see their character sheets. It was a pretty interesting experience. But, I think you are missing the point.

I'm not saying that its absolutely bad for the players to know the rules, nor am I saying that it is good for a DM to just overturn the rules on a whim. Players that know the rules can share the work load better. Players that know the rules can convey thier desires more precisely in the language of the rules. What I am saying is that it is not an absolute necessity to know the rules. In fact, it's not only not a necessity to know the rules, but at times it can be for some players a trap in that they only think within what they believe is possible within the rules. Rules are great. They give DM's power to arbitrate situations cleanly, speedily, consistantly, and fairly. A DM is generally better off sticking to the rules whenever he can, because especially by now, the rules to D&D are getting pretty solid. But rules also can be a big hinderance to the imagination, and ultimately the DM has to recognize that the rules are just tools to help and that if they are getting in the way of enjoyment of the game he needs to find better rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure. And he does. Even if you the player don't. And you the player only need to ask once. Whether I say, "Page 70 of the player's handbook", or "I use D20 Modern for jump rules" or whether I say, "The official rules are crap, take a look at these." is entirely up to me.

Good. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about, "Sure, I know that your character sheet says that you can reasonably expect to jump 20 feet from a running start, and those are the rules we've been using, but, today, you can't. Yes, I know that NPC just jumped 20 feet. Yes, I know that yesterday you jumped 20 feet. This time, it doesn't work."

 

[Celebrim]

Good. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about, "Sure, I know that your character sheet says that you can reasonably expect to jump 20 feet from a running start, and those are the rules we've been using, but, today, you can't. Yes, I know that NPC just jumped 20 feet. Yes, I know that yesterday you jumped 20 feet. This time, it doesn't work."

The problem is we don't know what we are talking about. Probably both of us are guilty of projecting on to the event that started this whole discussion and predeciding who was really at fault. We don't know what rules were being used. We don't know if the DM had been tossing around in his head for weeks that he didn't like that force attacks had no miss chance with blink and that the first time it came up he was going to run it differently. We don't know whether the DM had the rules working one way up to that point, and then decided - just when it would favor the NPC - to have it work the other way. We certainly have no indication that he ruled against the PC's earlier and then in favor of the NPC's latter. We don't know if the player was thinking, "During the blink the character has 100% concealment unless the player can see ethereal creatures, so its reasonable that magic missile has at least chance to miss during the blink." That's not a ruling that is important to me, but its certainly a fair interpretation of this particular circumstance that IMO a DM is well within his rights to make. And if you'd let me make just a small assumption here, if the DM had ruled against the SRD and in the PC's favor when it would really matter, I'm willing to bet we would have never heard about it for all the sanctity of the rules arguments we are hearing now. All we really know is that one group of players got so upset over a relatively trivial ruling by a DM that they decided to end the session and/or campaign. From that we've launched into a long discussion over DM authority, but we really have no particular way to judge what happened in that particular campaign because it isn't a part of our shared reality and the only information we have about it is from one side with obvious sources of bias. So let's stop worrying about that, and instead talk about things that we can speak about concretely.

 

[Veander]

Use a 2-minute rules-lookup rule. If you can't fin it in 2 minutes, then follow Crothian's example. I use a 2 minute hour glass to time us.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Completely different playstyles here.

Celebrim wants players who don't know the rules and just give in plain english what they are doing, and he'll adjudicate their actions based on their desire. Most other people are going to want their players to know the rules and thus are knowlegable about what they can and cannot do, so they can make informed decisions.

Celebrim, I suspect that for you the perfect system of play would be one in which the players had no idea what game rules system was being used and had no idea what it said on their characters sheets, everything being conveyed in plain english, whereas the GM determines everything with a rules system, again explaining the world in plain english. Is this accurate?

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, I suspect that for you the perfect system of play would be one in which the players had no idea what game rules system was being used and had no idea what it said on their characters sheets, everything being conveyed in plain english, whereas the GM determines everything with a rules system, again explaining the world in plain english. Is this accurate?

No. Things like whether the players have any idea of what the game rules system is or what it says on thier character sheets (or what exactly the things that it says on thier character sheets mean) are irrelevant. I don't really have a preference about that except to repeat that players that know the rules can share the work load, and can speak with greater preciseness when necessary.

What is accurate is that I do prefer as much of the game to be an exchange of story as possible (what you call 'plain english'), and for the rules to intrude only when that absolutely must. You see, what player's want from the game is to be entertained, and what I want from the game is to be entertained. When I'm a player, what I expect from a DM is a conveyance of story. I don't need the DM telling me what the rules are. I need the DM to tell me what happens, what I see, what I experience, and what I touch, smell, etc. I want the DM to be an entertaining storyteller, with memorable and colorful characters, plot twists, puzzles and exciting combat. That's what I consider fun as a player, and that's what I try to give my players.

Likewise, when I'm a DM, what I find entertaining in a player is a colorful character who stays in character. A skillful tactician is only interesting in so far as it ensures that he'll be able to overcome the challenges put before him and keep the story going. A PC comes in who knows all the rules but who only tells me what happens within the frame work of the rules, "I take a 5' step and then make a full attack action on the ogre." is within his rights to do so, but he's boring to me as a DM. And to a certain extent if I have players doing that and nothing but that I feel I've failed as a DM because I haven't engaged people's imaginations. By experience, the players that have entertained me the DM don't need to know the rules in order to do so. In fact, several of the great pleasures I've had as DM's were DMing a completely new player that didn't know ANY of the rules, and just watching thier natural 'innocent' role play unfold for the first time without any metagaming, without any rules lawyering, and without any attempt to make the game a competition between me and them. Instead you get a naturally compelling story which wraps me up in events every bit as much as the players. It's just simply beautiful, and you want to throw your arms around them after the session and go, "Thank you. Thank you. That's what we DM's live for." And some of the best enjoyment I've had a PC came playing Chill when not only did I not know any of the rules, but unbeknownst to me the referee was learning the rules too. But because I didn't know the rules, I never once knew that he ever did anything wrong.

 

[moritheil]

Now I understand what you meant when you wished for me to say something here instead. (Feel free to quote me!)

 

[Ninja-to]

I had this problem with a few people in my group to the point it would bring combat to a crawl and totally ruin the game for me, the DM. I could never get the feel I wanted because of the microcosm of tactical arguements that would ensue.

So one game session, I blew up and called the game. Right in the middle of a combat. The room sat in stunned silence. "Pack it up - I mean it - I am not having fun, so leave."

Fortunately, there are voices of reason in the group, and those diplomats came to "save the game." After 30 minutes of chatting with the rest dumbfounded in another room, I set down the laws of the land. No rules arguements during play. I don't care what the book says, if I am wrong or right. If you have a problem with it, then talk to me AFTER the game. And if you expect me to change the outcomes, HAH. Tuf luck sailor. My word is law, because I play to have fun, not to slave over someone else's idea of what the rules say or do not say.

After a few tenuous games, everyone finally settled in to the fact I would no longer let a few rule lawyers spoil my fun. Now i get the "feel" to the game I want, and the lawyers toil in the incidious unpredictability of my game calling - and I revel in it, because I am having fun! And ironically, so are they.....

This is almost EXACTLY what happened in my game. And I congratulate you on your strong minded resolution. You totally deserve the fun you get out of the game now, because it takes a lot of willpower to put up with players like that in the first place, let alone continue to play with them. Good job.

 

[Ninja-to]

We do have interruptions regarding my rulings but I'm lucky; these are all polite and brief.

"Are you sure about that?"

"Why's that?"

"I thought..."

I actually feel supported by my players, because of the way they challenge me if they think I'm wrong. And on those occasions where they've been able to quickly point out my error, I've been as quick to take the correction on board. In other words, I don't feel defensive.

I guess the best bet is to explain to players up front that you want to keep rules challenges in-game to a minimum and have an established protocol for dealing with them. There will be those who agree to these table rules but then ignore them when the game gets underway but, once they make themselves known to me, I cut them no slack, because of the effect I know they have on the whole group. I'll remind someone a couple of times how I like to handle disputes. If they can't adapt after that, they're gone.

Sounds like a dream group!

 

[Ranes]

I should have mentioned that one of my players DMs another group (he's really into the Greyhawk Wars) and knows his stuff. He doesn't do computers much though, so he's only visited EN World a couple of times. The others aren't into the game so much that they understand why I spend so much of my time here. Nevertheless, between game sessions, I get into arguments with all of them over rules interpretations. The ones that aren't resolved by agreement either (a) come to an end when we agree to disagree, the player respecting I'm entitled to adjudicate my interpretation when I DM or (b) descend into puerile name-calling. I don't think I've ever had a better group, though.