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

[Nail]

Player arguing can spoil a game.....OTOH, so can a lack of fairness on the part of the DM. It's a fine line to walk.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

I'm just operating based on what you have presented. You said "I'm not going to tell you the system, just some broad strokes before the game." If you want to be more specific, be more specific. But that would run counter to your argument, so you made this weak argument instead.

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

Thematic elements are only important to the extent that they affect content. A thematic element that doesn't affect content may as well not exist.

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.

All of it? That's like saying "I'm going to do a campaign set in the era between 1000 and 1300, but not giving any other information. For one thing, the thematic elements are wildly different depending on the era of play you are talking about: the level of power and nature magic prior to the War of Wrath is vastly different from the level of power in the Numenorean period, and both are vastly different from those elements during the War of the Ring. Your description didn't say "I'm using moral elements from Tolkien", it said "the campaign is inspired by Tolkien", and then went on to describe being "gritty". Am I to get that you draw the moral compass of the Tolkien books into the campaign, or the power level and setting information?

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.

You see, now you are doing what you claim you don't have to: you are giving me rules information to evaluate the setting and the game. This sort of information is necessary to evaluate the game, primarily because it tells me what sort of game you are planning on playing. Having said that, I would reasonably expect you to use these rules, and not just discard the Ravenloft style rules you've put forward when it suits you.

But that's a far cry from your claim that you don't need to tell anyone the rules of play before the game starts. In fact, its the exact opposite.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. You assume that people will understand that the brothers Grimm fairytales will be the original versions. But on the other hand, many people don't even know that the versions they are familiar with are the sanitized versions, so your reference to them will be less than useless to convey information about your campaign. Of course, you also say that you are picking and choocing what you are bringing to the game, how was I supposed to know that (even if I guessed you were going with the original versions) you wanted to edit out the Germanic bias and crude references in the originals to provide inspiration for your game? You conveyed little information, because you didn't communicate that. If you want to say "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." say that, don't say "I'm inspired by the brothers Grimm", because that means many other things beyond what you wanted to say.

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, your game will be less gritty than your typical GURPS low-tech/fantasy game? You see, your assessment of what is "gritty" is subjective - you have a vision of what "grittier" means, but that is less gritty than many other games. So when you tell me "grittier", you fail to convey information of value, because you didn't tell me gritty relative to what. Now, when you describe what you think gritty is, then you give information, but it still isn't that gritty.

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.

Except that is exactly what you have endorsed with your position that "the Gm doesn't even have to tell players what game system he is using" mantra. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, don't wave it about as your motto.

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.

No, you're playing something, you're just not playing D&D. You are playing a version of "let's pretend".

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.

Oh get over yourself. Wanting to be able to predict the outcome of actions isn't "rule-playing", its using the rules for what they are intended - to facilitate the play between the group. If the DM routinely alters those or glosses over them simply to get a better "story" then he's using the wrong system, or he needs to get better at telling his story.

The Storyteller games are deadly dull, no matter who is narrating them.

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.

No, I see the rules as being there for a reasons - they allow players to interact with the game world in a reliable manner. You see them as a hindrance, which is your problem. They are there to allow role-playing to take place. What you get when you ignore them willy-nilly isn't role playing, although a lot of hyper-pretentious people think it is. What you get is bad improvised theatre, which isn't role-playing, and it certainly isn't participating in a role-playing-game.

 

[moritheil]

No, you're playing something, you're just not playing D&D. You are playing a version of "let's pretend".

The Storyteller games are deadly dull, no matter who is narrating them.

Much of this has been said already, and your bias (or preference) is pretty clear at this point. Can everyone drop the "my way is better" jihad?

If so, I think there might be enough of a thread to salvage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Yes and no.

I also care about telling stories. I just think that stories should be told within the shared framework we call the rules - with the understanding that the rules can be added to and changed, but that everyone should be on board with it.

For instance, in the original case, there are hoards of reasons why, within the rules, the magic missile spell wouldn't work. "Because he's blinking" isn't one of them. "Because he's blinking and has a shield spell active" is one of them. "Because he's wearing a brooch of shielding" is one of them. "Because he researched a higher-level spell which looks an awful lot like blinking, but also includes some other effects" is another.

"Because I said so" is not even on the map.

 

[apesamongus]

No. The way the world works determines the rules.

Um... the gameword doesn't actually exist, so it can't determine anything about the real world. The rules exist in the real world.

 

[apesamongus]

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.

What do you base that statement on?

 

[Storm Raven]

Much of this has been said already, and your bias (or preference) is pretty clear at this point. Can everyone drop the "my way is better" jihad?

No one said one is the other (at least I didn't). I pointed out that once you start to discard rule on a regular basis because you want to advance the "story", you are not really playing D&D any more. You are just playing a version of "let's pretend" while having some D&D books nearby. If you like that, then go ahead and by all means do it. But don't advertise that you are playing D&D, because people will show up with the expectation that you are actually going to play D&D.

As to the Storyteller system, you might read enough to note that I was expressing my opinion, in response to the question of whether system matters. System matters - you won't get me to enjoy a campaign that uses the Storyteller system simply because I find the system deadly dull, unless you were to mangle it so much that it could not fairly be called the Storyteller system any more.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm just operating based on what you have presented.

No, your not. You're operating on what you think I've presented, but you aren't listening. You keep thinking you are making strong objections, but really you are just setting fire to scare crows.

In brief, because I've no desire for a flame war. Content and rules are not completely equatable. The relative power levels of the various ages of middle earth have little real effect on themselves and are only important if you want to run a coherent campaign over lapping all three, and in any event that debate has nothing really to do with my point. I still don't need to explain to you the Ravenloft system in order to for you to play the game, so please don't pretend that I do. We both reasonably expect that I would use those rules and not just discard them when it suits me, so obviously you're argument is with someone elses opinion and not with mine. I don't assume people will understand anything. I've played with too many new players that not only have never played an RPG, but have never read a fantasy novel. The basic gist of your argument seems to be that the more expansively I explain the setting, the clearer that I'm being. What an amazing observation you've made. It seems to me that you are arguing that anything outside the SRD or not published by TSR isn't D&D. Ok, fine. So I'm playing D20 with alot of D&D related material available under the OGL. Happier? What's your point?

Wanting to be able to predict the outcome of actions isn't "rule-playing", its using the rules for what they are intended - to facilitate the play between the group.

This yet another of your amazing observations. I'm wondering who you are disagreeing with.

If the DM routinely alters those or glosses over them simply to get a better "story" then he's using the wrong system, or he needs to get better at telling his story.

Whoever this guy is I guess. I note that changing the system so as to avoid routinely altering the rules is precisely what I'm advocating that DM's have the right to do.

The Storyteller games are deadly dull, no matter who is narrating them.

I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with Storyteller's. I might well have been sympathetic with 'Storyteller games are deadly pretentious, no matter who is narrating them', but on 'dull' you lost me.

No, I see the rules as being there for a reasons - they allow players to interact with the game world in a reliable manner.

Yeah, me too. I agree. Please move past that point.

You see them as a hindrance, which is your problem.

I suppose so. But I woudl like to point out that this statement doesn't contridict the previous one. Rules are both there for a reason and they are a hinderance.

They are there to allow role-playing to take place.

Errr.. again you lose me. Fudge, Amber, LARP, heck 'let's pretend'... you can do alot of role-playing without anything like a rules system.

What you get when you ignore them willy-nilly isn't role playing, although a lot of hyper-pretentious people think it is. What you get is bad improvised theatre, which isn't role-playing, and it certainly isn't participating in a role-playing-game.

You know, some might say that the person who says role playing isn't role playing unless its played his way is being hyper-pretentious. Some might say that the person who claims that the role playing that lots of people do isn't role playing - even though it meets the dictionary definition of role playing - because he doesn't like that sort of role-play is being hyper pretentious. Some might claim that the person denouncing whole role playing communities for not role playing in his manner as pretentious, is being a little pretentious. All I'm claiming though is that the person that thinks role playing is defined by rules and not by well, role playing might not know what role playing is - whatever he may know about games. And furthermore, I'm claiming that RPG's are distinct from other sorts of games in that the size of thier rules sets is inifinite, because no RPG can have rules expressedly for every possible situation and that if you approach the game backwards 'game' first, role playing second, that you are likely to see the whole of the game as what is contained within the pages of the rules. And when you sit down to the table, you are probably thinking in terms of what the rules let you do and not being your character. You may well enjoy that, and you are free to and I've even enjoy that on occassion, but my personal preference is not for that. The old adage goes that a role player can take off his RP hat and put on his gamer hat, but generally speaking the gamer has a harder time putting on the RP hat. Maybe you can, but I find in general that the adage is true.

UPDATE: I just thought of a question. I've played eight hour sessions of 1st edition D&D in which no dice where thrown and no rules where referenced. What role did the rules system actually have in the game? Would it have really mattered what the rules system was? Was I actually playing D&D? Was I actually playing a role playing game?

 

[Nail]

"Because I said so" is not even on the map.

Exactly.

Even so, such a game might be acceptable to some gamers. There's no accounting for tastes.

Back on topic: "What to do about rules disputes?"

Although I try to be fair as a DM, I freely admit I'm biased. What do you do when, dispite your best efforts, that bias and that of a player's runs into each other on a continuing basis? Are the only options "eject the player" or "eject the DM"?

 

[TheEvil]

Exactly.

Even so, such a game might be acceptable to some gamers. There's no accounting for tastes.

Back on topic: "What to do about rules disputes?"

Although I try to be fair as a DM, I freely admit I'm biased. What do you do when, dispite your best efforts, that bias and that of a player's runs into each other on a continuing basis? Are the only options "eject the player" or "eject the DM"?

Ah, back to the origins of the thread.

As the above situation: If I can't adjust to the GMs expectations I generally quit the game and thank the GM and other players for their time. Life is too short for games I don't enjoy.