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

[Storm Raven]

The rules are there to mostly be followed. However, the DM is the arbiter. You recieve the rules from the DM, you don't dictate them to the DM. Sometimes, the DM is "wrong". He misread or misunderstood the rules. You can point this out. The DM may still be in the dark, and might not understand. But still, you don't dictate the rules to the DM, the DM gives you the rules. If the DM is blind or oblivious, he's still the DM! You don't argue tooth and nail with the DM at the table. You accept the ruling at the time, you move on. After the game, you sit down with the DM and try to reason with him. You don't try to retcon what already happened, but you can try to make your case for the next session.

I didn't say anything different, but the simple fact of the matter is that the DM can be dead wrong, despite assertions to the contrary. If the game is simply DM fiat, then you aren't actually playing D&D, or any other kind of game more codified than "let's pretend". Now, "let's pretend" can be fun, when I play it with my five year old. But when I'm playing a game that has particular rules, I expect them to be the rules that we play with, unless told otherwise up front. "hiding the ball" and then popping a rule change on players mid-stream is, quite simply, dirty pool.

If the DM still denies the RAW... that's part of the RAW! Rule Zero. The DM is still right. You can at this point continue to game with him, probably because he's given you compelling world and in most or all other cases you have no problem with his rules, or you find that this particular rule is fundamental to who you are as a person, and leave to find a new DM (or just stop playing).

No, it's not part of the rules as written. That's pretty much the definition of "not the rules as written". It's a house rule, and one that should have been brought to the attention of the players before they started making decisions about their character's development and actions in the game. Doing otherwise really just amount to tricking the players by hiding information from them until they have committed to something.

The DM is still always right.

No, he's not. The DM is sometimes wrong. The DM isn't the only person at the table, trying to pretend that his opinion is the only one that matters is quite simply a silly endeavor.

You don't dispute this at the table. The DM is the authority here, and needs to maintain that authority or the game will, WILL die. I've seen it happen far too often.

DMs who maintain rigid authority and brook no challenges to their authority kill games far more readily than players who expect the rules of D&D to be in effect when they sit down to play a game of D&D. Authoritarians often find themselves playing alone, with no players to DM.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not sure what you mean. I think you mean, "Why are you even bothering to play a game that uses published rules to begin with?". In which case, the answer is, "Because it's usually alot easier than writing up your own and making 4-6 copies".

I mean, if you are just going to change the rules on a whim, why are you even bothering to play a game with rules? The rules are there to give predictability - so that the players and the DM can evaluate their options and decide which ones they want to choose, and understand the consequences of those decisions. Once you start nullifying the rules left and right by fiat, then you are essentially playing unfairly with the rules. Actions have entirely unpredictable consequences, because the DM is changing things as you go. If you choose to use a particular spell because of the effects it is supposed to have, and the DM (without telling you about the change) fundamentally alters the spell, then your ability to make reasonable choices has been eliminated, and you are better off getting this out in the open and simply playing "let's pretend" where everything is just made up on the spot.

Errr... This dives deep into the difference between player and character knowledge. Had the character ever encountered a blink spell before? Had the character ever cast a magic missile at a blinking character before? If the answer is 'No', then the character has absolutely no basis for evaluating how a magic missile spell interacts with the blink spell, and the player should be aware that all those rules in the PH and DMG are only guidelines.

In this case, your players may start to wonder why they bothered to put ranks in skills like Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft if they don't give them any kind of insight concerning how magic works. Besides, in a D&D world, magic isn't that mysterious: it's a tool that is fairly well known given the volume of magic that gets slung about on a regular basis. Those who grow up in such a world should have as firm a basis on how magic works as the typical person today has concerning how to operate a computer. If you want mysterious magic, play another system.

In many cases they are very good guidelines, and I respect DM's that break them willy-nilly less than I respect DM's that break them only rarely. But I don't argue with the DM's right to break them. I agree that the DM should follow the rules unless he has a specific reason not to, but maybe this DM specifically thinks that the magic missile spell is overpowered,

In which case he should have told the players up front about the rule change, and not sprung it on them mid-stream.

or maybe the DM thought 'I really need this NPC to live long enough to convey the secret to the PC's' and couldn't improvise better on the fly,

In which case he should have made the NPC better able to survive in the first place, or had a contingency plan in place in the event the PCs killed him. If you don't want someone to encounter the possibility of death, don't put them in combat.

or maybe he thought that the blink spell is underpowered,

In which case, once again, he should have told the players about the change up front.

or maybe the DM specifically wrote down in the evening's entertainment, 'Improved Blink (ex)': 'This creature's blink ability causes even force effects to miss'.

The key to consistancy is not following the published rules, but once you make a ruling sticking to it. The DM is only jerking chains around if he is not sticking to his own ruling. If the PC sorcerer now learns the blink spell, he's got a reasonable expectation that magic missiles have a chance of missing. And it's not like this particular ruling (extending the miss chance on a spell to include everything) is really bizarre. Really bizarre would be ruling that Energy Resistance (fire) didn't apply to this particular fireball, but even that is potentially explainable (Sacred Spell for instance). The real question here is was the DM presenting the players with an unreasonable challenge? Did having a miss chance on your magic missiles somehow ruin the entertainment of facing the bad guy? Is magic missile somehow now a bad spell because blink provides partial protection?

Like I said, If you change something, you should let the players know ahead of time. The characters generally aren't babes in the wilderness. They should have some reasonable idea of how effective their abilities are, and the player's only window onto how those abilities operate is the game rules. If you change the game rules mid-stream, then you are assuming a world in which people don't have any reasonable idea of what sorts of things they are capable of doing. I suppose you could play the game assuming the characters are mindless automatons with no self-evaluative capability, but that's an odd way of going about things.

Which he did.

Actually, if you read what happened, he didn't. He ignored the rule, for no given reason other than he appears not to have wanted to be shown to be incorrect regarding the text of the spell.

Whatever. For the DM to simply ignore a rule doesn't imply pig-head obstinacy, nor does it break the implied 'play-fair' contract. Now, it may be in this particular case that the DM is a jerk or a hypocrite, but that's irrelevant to his right to break the rules and I dare say that if the DM quit, then he wasn't the only one being a pig-headed jerk nor was his ignoring a minor rule the main reason that the session failed to entertain.

Actually, ignoring a minor rule is exactly what makes a DM a pig-headed jerk. If you alter things on the fly on a regular basis, the game degenrates in what Gygax was fond of calling a lottery. You don't have a game any more, you just have cowboys and indians, and people arguing over who shot who first. Altering the rules without notice is a breach of the play-fair implied contract between players and DMs.

 

[Telas]

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.

Bingo!

Many experienced players look at the battlemat as a chess board, and the game as a set of known challenges with fixed optimal responses (from 1st level characters). Where's the fun in that? :\

(Aside: This is my problem with 3rd Edition; it rewards munchkining. )

Personally, I play a fast and loose game, with player and DM enjoyment the goal. If the rules get in the way, frag 'em. I make a solid effort to inform the players about any rule changes, but if I somehow neglect to do so, then oh well....

I think the argument is devolving into what's allowed, and what's acceptable. A DM who changes all the rules all the time is allowed to do so. However, a DM who does that is not considered acceptable to most players, and (apparently according to some) should have his DMing license revoked and return all his DMing wages.

And people should criticize his style on the message boards, even though they've never played at his table.

Telas

 

[Storm Raven]

It's a fantasy setting variously inspired by the Brothers Grimm, JRR Tolkien, and HP Lovecraft. I've got a lot of background in medieval history, so be prepared for a little grittier dirtier campaign than most.

That still doesn't tell me what kind of game you are running. In point of fact, you've given me almost no information at all.

Tolkien, Grimm, and Lovecraft? You've covered several thousand pages of freqeuntly contradictory information there. Which material from Tolkien are we talking about? The War of the Jewels era? The War of the Ring era? Something else? What are you bringing from Lovecraft, and how does that fit with Tolkien? Or the brothers Grimm? What Grimm's tales are you drawing from? Which versions? The originals, or the later verions?

Grittier than most? Grittier relative to what? Grittier relative to a typical 3e D&D game? Grittier relative to a typical GURPS game? Grittier relative to a typical Rolemaster game? You've given me very little information.

It would seem to me that the content is more important than the mechanics. Do you personally really have to read rule books before you play the game? I can't count the number of systems I picked up as I played the game without ever reading the rule book.

Pikcing up a game is something entirely different from playing one. If I don't like how something is handled in a setting book, I can port it to another system, or come up with house rules (which the players would be informed of). If I sit down to an actual game, what the game system is matters. I like several games, but I don't like playing any of the White Wolf "nound: the verbing" style games. No matter what you do with the system, you are unlikely to ever run a game under one of those systems that I would care to play in, simply because of the system.

It also matters because when you play a particular system, you come with certain expectations. I expect different things when I sit down and play a game of GURPS IOU than when I play a game of standard 3.5e D&D. Knowing what system you are using is a way of telling me what to expect (and it also gives me a meter for evaluating what you mean by things like "grittier" or "more realistic" and so on).

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

So, do you normally assume that grown adults frequently are unable to evaluate their capabilities ahead of time?

 

[apesamongus]

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?

Everyone says their part, then we come to a consensus that everyone can accept. Note, that "accept" and "are happy about" are not always the same.

 

[Seeten]

I want to tell a story, and any rules that get in the way, get moved out of the way.

I want to play a game. Rules are there to facilitate that game.

I know Celebrim is in the minority here, but even though he has come off poorly until his last post, I agree with him on story over tactical battlemat combat. I am fine with using a battlemat, and miniatures, but, I'd rather be roleplaying. We have a rules lawyer in my group, and we have me, a big jerk, so he starts lawyering, and I tell him to shut up, listen to the DM, or die. (well, not really, but close enough.)

Patryn is a tactical gamer, who uses the rules to assist him in making informed choices. Celebrim is a story oriented gamer who uses the story to assist in clearing out rules roadblocks, and nonsense. Both have their place, and as long as a player KNOWS ahead of time what he is getting into, both can be fun.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well, there's a key element to this whenever it comes up; namely, is the DM ruling a certain way because he/she has a particular vision and has thought it through, or is it just because they're an idiot. I think we've all played with both, and they're generally instantly recognizeable.

I haven't had a big rules argument in years, maybe decades, so its not an issue for me. I like to spend no more than 30 seconds looking up a rule if I need to, and I'll rule on the fly if need be. If there's a disagreement, I'm fine with a player coming back to me after the session and presenting their case; oftentimes, I'll remember and double check myself.

Excessive rules arguing wouldn't be acceptable to me. I'd be of the mind to say, "There's the door if its that big a deal to you."

 

[likuidice]

Personally, I agree with the concept that everyone should play by the same set of rules. If I am playing D&D and the DM is playing something else, then there's something wrong. House rules should be given before play starts, otherwise, the game should be played according to how it's written. If I'm going to shell out 20-30 pounds on a book to play in this game, it better be played according to that book. House rules in a situation which is not covered by the main rules should be agreed by all who are playing, with a vote if an agreement cannot be reached. If the situation is covered by the DMs predefined house rules and/or the main rules, then those should be followed.
Also, why is a player not allowed to ignore the rules when he or she chooses, if a DM is not held to the same level of respect for the game?

DM: "your magic missile fails to work as it says it does in the set of rules I told you we were using, all of your allies implode as it's now a no save killer area effect, I thought magic missile was a stupid spell".

Player: "I cast prestidigitation, a giant hand falls from the sky and squashes the bad guy, then delivers me a pile of magic items".

Apparently the first is acceptable, yet the second isn't.

The DM should use the rules lawyers in their group to teach the others how the game works, if everyone knew the rules, then there would be no arguments (or very few, grey areas would still exist).

 

[Celebrim]

[/i]That still doesn't tell me what kind of game you are running. In point of fact, you've given me almost no information at all.

Well, arguably I've given you alot more information than if I told you I was running GURPS. Frankly, I don't see the point in defending myself at this point, because instead of someone talking about me, I'm talking to someone talking about a straw man version of me that comes from some dark nightmare he has about DM's.

And interestingly enough, strawman dopplegangers manifested out of some dark nightmare of evil imagination are exactly the sort of things that might occur in my campaign world.

Tolkien, Grimm, and Lovecraft? You've covered several thousand pages of freqeuntly contradictory information there.

Maybe. But you're concerned about content. I wasn't talking about content but rather thematic elements.

Which material from Tolkien are we talking about? The War of the Jewels era? The War of the Ring era? Something else?

All of it. I've read the LotR 18 times. I've read the Silmarillion 6 times. I've read the rest as well. I don't think that there are major thematic differences between the periods. In every case you are dealing with a conflict that has its roots in a particular moral outlook. Underneath the particular events, you have clear battles between good and evil. I mean, by saying that I have inspiration in Tolkien, that I expect players to make moral decisions according to some compass that they have made for thier characters and that they will be involved in a world where morality is real and that moral choices will have consequences. That isn't to say that it will always be clear what those choices should be or where the real enemy lies, but that they can expect that I will be drawing on classical themes regarding good and evil at all times.

What are you bringing from Lovecraft...

Lovecraft has a moral compass too. Lovecraft's moral compass suggests that what is alien is evil - at least evil in the sense of being the destroyer of mankind. I bring from Lovecraft the idea that evil a thing of mind-blowing cosmic horror and that all that stands between it and the good world, are a few heroes who seemingly are ill-equipped to thwart foes of that mind-blowing scale but who manage to do it - sometimes at great cost - anyway. Since you are a rules person, I would say that this is indicated in my house rules by the fact that the full Ravenloft fear, horror, and madness rules are in play.

Or brothers Grimm? What Grimm's tales are you drawing from? Which versions? The originals, or the later verions?

This is the same sort of question. Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to justify yourself to me? All of them, though since obviously I'm running at times a dark game, I'd say probably the originals are closer than most of the sanitized translations you'll see on the market. That said, I'm not bringing into the game the particular crude German biases that are so much a part of the original tales. I'm bringing in the fact that the Grimm tales are really grim. I'm bringing in my love for European folklore and small magic and animism. I'm saying that my world is going to be haunted by fey and spirits and talking animals and trees with evil hearts.

Grittier than most? Grittier relative to what? Grittier relative to a typical 3e D&D game? Grittier relative to a typical GURPS game? Grittier relative to a typical Rolemaster game? You've given me very little information.

What do you expect? Grittier than most. Grittier relative to typical games of 3e D&D. Grittier relative to a typical GURPS game. Grittier relative to a typical Rolemaster game. Grittier because grit in the sense I'm using it is not a result of the system you use but of the style of game you play. I'm saying that armor will rust, that sewage runs down the streets of towns, that people die of disease, that the PC's probably have lice and fleas and will want to take baths fairly regularly, that even good aligned towns will have rotting corpses hanging above the gates of the town as a warning to criminals, and that you as a player should not expect alot of anachronisms in the world but that it will feel really alien because its rooted in the character of the European past (and to a lesser extent the mythology and culture of other parts of the world, notably India). None of that has to do with your rules system, so please check your preconceptions in at the door.

So, do you normally assume that grown adults frequently are unable to evaluate their capabilities ahead of time?

Yes, I do. Because I get players - all of whom are adults because children tend not to have this problem - that move into my games for one shots or short adventurers, or maybe I'm running the friday night game at the game store (in which case I'm not changing the rules at all) and I see players who treat the game as if it were chess and they were a bishop condemned to run between the lines. Look at the other threads in this forum, and see how many of them begin with "Can I do this...?" or "Do the rules let me...?" or "How would you handle this...?" All those threads precisely have to do with the fact that the rules don't cover all of your capabilities. The rules are their to restrict players, and that is a very good thing, because without restrictions the game has no challenges and no resolutions. But the rules shouldn't become a mental straight jacket. Say what you want to do, and if the rules don't cover it then I'll come up with rules that do. It's my job to make the game run smoothly. You the player don't have to know how the magic works, but - and this is where I think you are misunderstanding me - I'm not trying to keep secrets either and I'm certainly not changing the rules on you from one situation to the next.

Pikcing up a game is something entirely different from playing one.

Really? You mean I wasn't the playing the game, or are you merely conceding that it is possible to play the game without picking it up? If the former, then you've got a real problem in that I was playing the game and you won't be able to convince me otherwise.

If I sit down to an actual game, what the game system is matters.

You have a wierd definition of 'actual'. Are you saying that you aren't playing the game unless you know all the rules? Are you saying that the game is somehow not real if the players don't know the rules? Gee, it sure looks like actual play to me. Maybe its just the illusion of play, and I failed my saving throw, but it sure felt real to me.

I like several games, but I don't like playing any of the White Wolf "nound: the verbing" style games. No matter what you do with the system, you are unlikely to ever run a game under one of those systems that I would care to play in, simply because of the system.

No, you wouldn't would you. Storyteller depends on implicit trust in your narrator. I think that pretty much says it all right there. I'm role playing. You're rule playing. You are tactician, and the game is for you all about what you can do to overcome obstacles. That's fine, but this isn't Chess, Bloodbowl, Starfleet Battles, ASL, DBM, or Settlers of Cataan. I've got some mechanical issues with the Storyteller system myself, but they can be completely overcome by strong narration. When I want a competitive tactical game, then I will play a competitive tactical game. When I want to role play, I want to role play.

 

[Aluvial]

Interesting debate. But go back and read the posts again. I can tell exactly who I'd want to play with, and exactly who I wouldn't. It's about maturity and tone. You can tell who has it, and who doesn't and it is essentially that simple.

The original poster and question has been forgotten while people debate either side of the coin. That's generally what is happening in the original poster's question, someone thinks it should work one way, someone thinks it should go the other way.

The problem isn't the question that is being debated, but how the individual's debating it handle their issues. You are the only person that makes yourself upset. Either you are in control of yourself, or you aren't.

We all play some variation of role-playing game and those are based on rules, undeniably. We all agree to play the game with a DM/GM who has the job of interpreting and making judgment on those rules. There is a social contract that says, as a player, we trust the DM to make a good call. There is a social contract that says, as the DM, I will try my best to remain consistent, and impartial; to help you the players have fun with my creation.

It's when someone loses their patience, and sight of fun, that problems occur. People who play DnD know full well that the game is more than just a game. For many folks, it is a way of life, their characters are full extensions of themselves, the DM's world is a labor of intense imagination and personal time and thought. The DM wants the players to respect that, the players want the DM to respect their characters that they've painstakingly created.

Many DM's can't express their love of their world adequately, while many players can't express their character's nuances and motivations. There comes the unspoken question, does that person respect what I've created, does that person respect me for what I've created? That is the underlying problem in many rules debates.

Is there going to be a catch-all way of handling every problem.... no, but you can try to handle yourself better in the situations that occur. Again, it is a question of maturity and fun. Are you going to argue the point with a tone and attitude, or are you going to discuss the situation? That's it. It's that simple. If you are getting upset, you are not having fun. If you are upset, you are likely damaging the fun that your friends are having around you. This is clear as day.

Rules debates are fine, but they should be discussed as civilly as possible. Why get upset and if you do, discuss why you are upset first.

And if this doesn't work. Pelt the guy with dice until he relents. It is my experience that a good d12 (why throw a good die) to the skull takes the fight out of most role-players!

Aluvial