When DMing, I have no problem with players asking for a clarification or even questioning a call. Often I've misremembers a spells effect, and if so, I'll usually change to RAW unless I meant to change it. What bugs me is when I players continues to whine or argue even after I have explained how I interpret the rules, I how I have house-ruled something to be different. I remember one heated argument about what a players warhorse could do, even after I specifically reminded him that at the start of the campaign I mentioned that it was one of the things I handled different from RAW. The pathetic part is we both knew the horse would spend most if not all of the game tethered or in a stable somewhere.
In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?
- Thread starter Ninja-to
- Start date
TheEvil
Explorer
As a player inclined to argue with the GM when I feel the GM is making a bad call, I try to keep several things in mind:
Is this issue big enough to matter but small enough to win?
This may seem obvious, but a lot of people, both players and GMs, seem to forget it.
Is this a clear cut rule in the RAW, or is it one of the gray areas?
If something is clear in the RAW and not covered by an existing house rule, I feel it should be played RAW. If it is not, especially if it is a matter of interacting rules from different books, I will usually let it drop after explaining my interpretation. Of course, usually I will discuss things like that with the GM ahead of time...
This leads to etiquette:
Be polite!
I still sometimes forget this rule...
Talk to the GM ahead of time.
If I am planning on doing something that is in the gray areas with a character as part of their build, I will talk to the GM about it outside of the game ahead of time.
If time allows, look up the rule before interrupting the game.
It doesn't usually take more then 30 seconds or so to look up a rule, and if it does, it probably isn't as clear cut as I may think it is. I have been saved the embarassment of arguing when I was wrong by this one. Granted, combat tends to cause most of the problems here.
Know when to let go.
Self explanitory, but hard to remember in the heat of the moment. No game is worth even a 5-minute heated argument on the rules.
Suggestions I would make to GMs:
Spell out what kind of game you want ahead of time.
Many arguments could be prevented if rules-oriented players were informed ahead of time that the rules would be bent or broken for the sake of the story.
If the rules aren't clear, but the player has a reasonable argument, rule in the player's favor. It generates goodwill and trust from the players and helps diffuse GM vs. Players attitudes. You can always find firmer footing after the game and explain it to the players when nothing is on the line. This goes double for the small stuff.
If you haven't spelled out a change to RAW with a house rule before the game, don't implement one on the fly. Few things annoy players more then to be told something won't work because the GM doesn't like it. It is a game. Games have rules. It isn't unreasonable to a player to expect to be able to know the rules when the game starts. In the Blink example, if I were playing an arcane caster, I would be expect the GM to 'spell' out any changes from the RAW ahead of time.
Consider how a rules call will look from the other side of the screen. If something could be perceived as favoritism, you should seriously reconsider the call.
Be consistant.
Obviously, some arguments happen because the player or GM is an power-hungry jerk with no social skills, but in that case, arguments over the rules isn't the real problem.
Is this issue big enough to matter but small enough to win?
This may seem obvious, but a lot of people, both players and GMs, seem to forget it.
Is this a clear cut rule in the RAW, or is it one of the gray areas?
If something is clear in the RAW and not covered by an existing house rule, I feel it should be played RAW. If it is not, especially if it is a matter of interacting rules from different books, I will usually let it drop after explaining my interpretation. Of course, usually I will discuss things like that with the GM ahead of time...
This leads to etiquette:
Be polite!
I still sometimes forget this rule...
Talk to the GM ahead of time.
If I am planning on doing something that is in the gray areas with a character as part of their build, I will talk to the GM about it outside of the game ahead of time.
If time allows, look up the rule before interrupting the game.
It doesn't usually take more then 30 seconds or so to look up a rule, and if it does, it probably isn't as clear cut as I may think it is. I have been saved the embarassment of arguing when I was wrong by this one. Granted, combat tends to cause most of the problems here.
Know when to let go.
Self explanitory, but hard to remember in the heat of the moment. No game is worth even a 5-minute heated argument on the rules.
Suggestions I would make to GMs:
Spell out what kind of game you want ahead of time.
Many arguments could be prevented if rules-oriented players were informed ahead of time that the rules would be bent or broken for the sake of the story.
If the rules aren't clear, but the player has a reasonable argument, rule in the player's favor. It generates goodwill and trust from the players and helps diffuse GM vs. Players attitudes. You can always find firmer footing after the game and explain it to the players when nothing is on the line. This goes double for the small stuff.
If you haven't spelled out a change to RAW with a house rule before the game, don't implement one on the fly. Few things annoy players more then to be told something won't work because the GM doesn't like it. It is a game. Games have rules. It isn't unreasonable to a player to expect to be able to know the rules when the game starts. In the Blink example, if I were playing an arcane caster, I would be expect the GM to 'spell' out any changes from the RAW ahead of time.
Consider how a rules call will look from the other side of the screen. If something could be perceived as favoritism, you should seriously reconsider the call.
Be consistant.
Obviously, some arguments happen because the player or GM is an power-hungry jerk with no social skills, but in that case, arguments over the rules isn't the real problem.
Storm Raven
First Post
Celebrim said:
In that case, why are you even bothering to play a game that uses rules to begin with? If the rules aren't reliable, then the players have no way of evaluating their options with anything resembling a fair chance. Without consistency, then you are just jerking their chains for no good reason. The DM should follow the rules, unless there is some specific reason not to.
Now, if the DM says "that rule doesn't apply to this situation", that's one thing. Or if the DM says (hopefully before the session) "the following rules are changed . . ." that's reasonable too. But for the DM to simply ignore a rule out of pig-headed obstinacy is to break the implied "play-fair" contract with the players.
Fieari
Explorer
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.Storm Raven said:
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).
The DM is still always right. 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.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I believe Rule 0 was removed in 3.5. As for Rule 0, I also remember it being that it is the DM's job to inform the players of rules changes before the game. It isn't a catch all that says the DM is always right, it is the allowance of house rules as long as the DM is responsible enough to tell the players what these house rules are. You do not recieve the rules from the DM, you recieve the rules from the same place the DM recieves them from, the book. This doesn't mean that often-times the DM isn't encouraged to make a mistake in the interest of moving the game along, but at the same time the DM should make every effort to know these rules and to follow the rules as best they can unless the players have been told changes prior to the game starting.
Celebrim
Legend
Storm Raven said:
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".
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 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, 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, or maybe he thought that the blink spell is underpowered, 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?
Which he did.
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.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Celebrim said:
Totally disagree. They are not guidelines, they are rules. You can change the rules with House Rules, but these should be made known the player before he is in the situation, not after the fact.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Celebrim said:
Rule Zero as paraphrased from the 3.0 PHB was "check with the DM for changed or new rules." Seriously, lots of people misuse the term Rule Zero. It doesn't mean that the DM can change things, it is setting up a responsibility for both the Players and the DM to make sure that they are communicating properly. I hate to see such a wonderful rule perverted into "the DM is always right."
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Celebrim said:
On the other hand, darned if my Wizard doesn't know both the Blink spell and the Magic Missile spell, and darned if he don't have +14 bonus when it comes to Spellcraft.
You'd think he'd be aware of a pretty basic level of interaction between his spells.
Do we know that the above is the case in the case presented? No. But then, we don't know that it isn't, either.
Besides, the Wizard in question should have allowed to look at the blinking opponent, make a Spellcraft check of :
SRD said:
and say, "Yes, that's actually a stock Blink spell," or, "Hmmm - that looks like a normal Blink spell, but it's slightly different," or, "I have no idea what's going on there," depending on the roll and what the DM actually had going on.
Changing the spell mid-game is a pretty poor solution, assuming that we are talking of a stock Blink spell and a stock Magic Missile spell.
DMs are quite often wrong. That doesn't mean that they aren't wrong for a deliberate reason - or through making a mistake - but it doesn't make them suddenly correct.
Similar Threads
