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

[Ninja-to]

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

This entire post is one of the best I've ever seen. If you don't mind, I'm going to post it on my group's site. It just about sums up everything a DM experiences and has to go through when running a game. Excellent.

 

[Storm Raven]

You believe that the law is the higher authority in this situation, and I believe that the officer is. (Figuratively speaking, of course)

Except that he isn't. You have the right to expect that the rules will be as they had been outlined ahead of time, whether it applies to traffic stops or D&D. Now, the magnitude is different, and the control over violations of this expectation is different (for example, there is a reason that police officers are not also in the position to adjudicate the outcome of their traffic stops). But it doesn't change the fact that it is a reasonable expectation for a player to expect that the D&D rules will be used when the DM said they would be.

 

[Storm Raven]

And certainly it isn't your contention that realisticly ordinary runners slow down by 50% when going through the gentle curve of a track, is it? Don't you run into any versimilitude issues when the rules are so obviously not equatable with what actually happens in real life?

You see, that's where you just aren't paying attention to what the rules give you. of course you slow down on a curve, quite a bit, compared to the speed you move when you are charging in a straight line. A charge is an action that lets you move 120 feet (or so, less if you are heavily armored), usually starting from a standing start, and attack within a 6 second time frame. That's a 40 yard dash, usually in armor and carrying other equipment, in less than 6 seconds. That kind of speed already stretches credulity. There is a reason that the 40 yard dash is done on a straight line, and not on a gentle curve, because the curve slows you down. A lot.

 

[Henry]

Actually, Nail asked his original question because the DM wasn't using the rules as written. If the DM had, then this thread would have never existed.

First of all, my mistake on something - Nail didn't start the thread, Ninja-to did; my apologies for the wrong name.

Second, his/her original post didn't mention anything about the DM not following rules - it was about rules aruments in general. One player left because of heated rules disputes, and Ninja-to was asking how rules disputes are dealt with in general.

And you have far fewer disagreements when your stick to the rules as written (or changed with warning). Sure, there are interstitial gaps that need filling and rulings to be made, but those are far fewer when the DM isn't also changing the basic rules as he goes.

I'll agree that there are fewer resentments if a DM is not literally making everything up dictatorially as he goes along - but to be honest, no one seems to be doing that in this thread - Not even Celebrim. Even Celebrim is quoted originally as saying:

I make it a rule when I'm a PC never to question a DM's ruling until after the session, and preferably in private.

Then again, it's annoying when the DM clearly does not know the rules. It's also been my opinion that whenever possible the DM should know the rules better than anyone else playing.

If you are a DM, and you don't know how to rule the situation, don't be afraid to ask for an opinion from the PC's. On the other hand, don't let the PC's run your game, and don't get in the habit of debating rules lawyers and other sorts of metagamers and whiners.

Before the debate reached the level of "The rules must be followed to the letter at game-time" vs. "I make up the rules that the peons must use or die!" , which is what it seems to have become, it was a lot more multi-dimensional; even he wants a DM to be knowledgeable about the rules as a whole. There has to be a way to resolve arguments, but it needs to be expedient, and a lot of groups (mine included) have chosen "DM has final say."

It's not like we're running a government, and we only have one lifetime to get it right - every DM has the prerogative to run his campaign (his "house") as he chooses, and each player has the right to run his "house" the way he chooses when it's his turn - that's "house rules" to me.

 

[Nail]

Ex Post Facto is a legal issue of fairness that is found in virtually every Democratic nation on the planet.

Thanks, Mistwell. I learned something. (A reward for having the fortitude to slog through this thread and the Ad Hominem attacks.)

 

[Nail]

First of all, my mistake on something - Nail didn't start the thread, Ninja-to did; my apologies for the wrong name.

Right. I only commented, questioned, etc.

 

[werk]

You believe that the law is the higher authority in this situation, and I believe that the officer is. (Figuratively speaking, of course)

This smacks to me of the annoying kid that owns the ball. The kid that owns the ball is always right, or he'll just take his ball home. The other kids put up with him changing the rules or even the game that they are all playing so they can all keep playing. If he didn't own the ball he wouldn't be playing at all. They give him benefit of every call, spot him extra points, and agree to outrageous rules because they need that ball.

Its really not fun for anyone involved.

The kid with the ball will never be happy (because he doesn't like himself).
The other kids will never be happy because of the point above.

The other kids need to get their own ball and let the annoying kid work out his own issues.


I believe the law is the authority, the officer is an enforcer of the law and is bound to it, not vise versa.

 

[Ninja-to]

I resolve the issue with my decision, and i offer to discuss the rules on message board or by email with the other member of the group. So next time if the same rules came in the game we'll already had agree on something.

Much the same as me. Thanks for the input .

 

[IcyCool]

This smacks to me of the annoying kid that owns the ball. The kid that owns the ball is always right, or he'll just take his ball home. The other kids put up with him changing the rules or even the game that they are all playing so they can all keep playing. If he didn't own the ball he wouldn't be playing at all. They give him benefit of every call, spot him extra points, and agree to outrageous rules because they need that ball.

Its really not fun for anyone involved.

The kid with the ball will never be happy (because he doesn't like himself).
The other kids will never be happy because of the point above.

The other kids need to get their own ball and let the annoying kid work out his own issues.


I believe the law is the authority, the officer is an enforcer of the law and is bound to it, not vise versa.

Bias aside, your ball example is indeed fairly close to the truth. I didn't say that a GM who makes up bad rules or silly rules calls is a good GM. No one here did. I'm not sure if that was where this comment was heading, but I wanted to make that clear. Also, in the "Minotaur Charging in an arc" example, I think that GM made a bad call. However, the point I have been arguing is that it is the GM's call to make, good or bad. The players can point it out, or bring it up after game, or even walk if they don't like the ruling.

My table rules are generally thus:

1. I try to be fair. I'm out to have fun with you, not at your expense.
2. I will generally follow the rules. Sometimes I'll need to make judgement calls, and sometimes I'll fudge something a bit.
3. Don't argue with me at the table. Feel free to point out that I made a mistake, but accept my ruling until after game. Then we can talk about it and come to a decision.
4. When in doubt, the GM is right.
5. If you don't like the above rules, you don't have to play in my game. If the group doesn't want to play in my game, that's fine, someone else can GM. I'm perfectly happy as a player.

So as to your example, if people don't want to play in my game, we can just use someone else's ball.

And to be fair, your ball example is inherently flawed. If folks don't want to play the kids way, he could just let them use the ball and play the way they want. If folks don't want to play my game, I have no ball to let them use.

 

[BalazarIago]

It is rather interesting that when I first started playing V3.0 and V3.5, I did not know the rules, one of my players did. I am the DM and have been doing it for over 15 years with the same group, I had the basics, but not the particular specifics. When it came time to make a rule call, I asked the expert and then used it. I made sure to look it up afterwards to learn the full effects of that particular rule.

The responsibility of the DM is to tell a story, the mechanics of the game are not too important. I have told the same basic story using Rolemaster, D&D and Star Wars (different groups). The mechanics of the game are just another tool at the disposal of the DM. He should know all the rules, but I don't see it as a requirement to being a good DM.