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

[Seeten]

One of the things that strikes me here is that I would prefer to game with mature adults who are playing for the same reason I am: To have fun.

The rules are only there as a frame of reference. They facilitate the adjudication, but should in no way get in the way of fun. Rules should be consistent, but also, should be in the background. I dont want rules talk, or rules lawyering, at any table I sit at, whether as a DM or Player. Frankly, if you want to debate, go to the debate club. If you want to discuss rules, go to the ENWorld Rules forum. If you want to play D&D, go to a D&D game.

I expect the rules to be in practice, in the background, in some degree. House rules are fine, changes on the fly are fine, as long as they arent stupid, heavy handed, or wasting a lot of my time. My time is precious to me. Its valuable, and I will be damned if I'll let anyone waste it arguing about %20 miss chances on magic missile. I dont care if it has one, doesnt, or never will, as long as we move along.

 

[Henry]

As a point of note, circumstance bonuses are RAW, not "DM Fiat".

If we are discussing flat out making stuff up, we cant use circumstance bonuses to illustrate the "Making up" part.

Not sure why not, because circumstance bonuses are not listed as available in the evasion/pursuit rules, only straight Dex or Con checks. Otherwise, if circumstance bonuses are available at all times, then there's little cause for debate - every DM I've ever seen uses them.

The rules are only there as a frame of reference. They facilitate the adjudication, but should in no way get in the way of fun. Rules should be consistent, but also, should be in the background. I dont want rules talk, or rules lawyering, at any table I sit at, whether as a DM or Player.

Well said.

 

[TheEvil]

I gotta say, I don't think the role of trust in this debate really is larger then is accepted.

If you trust the GM, you will point out where he has gotten a clear cut rule wrong, and if they tell you it is different for a reason, you will accept this and move on. Said GM is highly unlikely to say 'because I said so' IMNSHO. If, on the other hand, you think the GM is meglomaniacal, egocentric, no good SOB out to screw you over, you will probably argue with them.
On the other side of the screen, if you trust your players, when they push a grey area of the game you will likely rule in their favor unless you have a solid reason not to. However, if you consider your players to be rules-lawyering, min-maxing, two-bit munchkins looking to squeeze every possible edge they can out of the rules, you probably will rule against them in every grey area.

I have been burned enough times by what most people would agree was just plain BAD GMing both before and after 3.X edition that I prefer that the game be played as close to the rules as possible and that all house rules be spelled out ahead of time. I will tend to argue what I consider clear areas of the rules until the GM says we do it my way or convinces me he is right. This has led to strain in the past and I suspect it of being one the big reasons my wife and I were told we were out of a game by e-mail the day before the next session. I am working on being more trusting.

 

[Celebrim]

This strikes me as a situation of the GM screwing over the players

Yeah, me too.

actually, I think this might be one of those 'strawman' thingies people keep talking about...

As an example, absolutely. But the wonderful thing about arguing with an absolutist is they still have to squirm around and defend thier position no matter how absurd your example is.

This is a situation the GM set-up and chose to run in a way that would exploit an oddity of the rules to disadvantage the player.

Which presumes that the DM is always foresightful and aware that the situation is going to screw over the players, but yes it strikes me that way as well.

But the real important point to me is how is that different from a PC exploiting an oddity of the rules to gain an advantage for themselves? Remember, unlike my strawman example, most situational oddities arise purely through some unforeseen chance. Why should we consider the DM's rigid adherance to the rules when it advantages the NPC's to be any better than the DM's spontaneous house rules that advantages the NPC's? And if we can't, isn't the real issue here something other than following or not following the rules?

Almost any GM I have ever played with would compare movement rates and mitigating conditions and declare a winner. There might be a few dice rolls involved for said conditions (a loose flagstone, for example).

Precisely. In practice, the rules change to fit the circumstances, and DM's are always rigging up ways to handle situations that they can tell the rules don't handle. The very fact that we know to handle the situation using the very very roughly described evasion and pursuit 'rules' (which if you read them are hardly firm rules) rather than the normal rules of movement indicates the knowledge that the rules are highly subjective. As I've just shown, you can't apply one set of rules to every situation. In effect, you have to have a 'house rule' for when each situation applies, because I could keep increasing the complexity of the scenario to the point when the evasion and pursuit rules don't seem like the best way to handle things. For example, the runners are being shot at by archers who must move about in order to keep a clear shot while the runners are moving about the around the track.

For example, the SRD says this about evasion and pursuit:

In round-by-round movement, simply counting off squares, it’s impossible for a slow character to get away from a determined fast character without mitigating circumstances. Likewise, it’s no problem for a fast character to get away from a slower one.

As I've just shown, there are cases when that isn't the case. Is the octogonal track a 'mitigating circumstance'? How do we know for sure? Surely playing it out round for round seems to indicate it is, but intuitively we know that it isn't really. (Even people on the other side of the debate seem to agree with that).

Lastly, this quote from the SRD intrigues me:

n general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities.

Well, it seems to me that there are times when the movement rules (because no set of rules is perfect) impose unnecessary hinderances on character activities even in combat. In such cases, I much prefer the rule to be, "Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could."

 

[ackron]

So far as my own games go, I fall into the "lawful" camp rather than the "chaotic" one.

I believe the game is most fun when the characters have as much access to the rules as the DM (monster and NPC stats aside). I don't believe in keeping rules from my players, because I believe the game is played best when both sides have complete access to the rules. That said, I don't believe every player needs to have the rulebook memorized before he plays, as long as he can look up the rule when he needs to understand how it works to make an informed decision.

So far, I don't think there is to much disagreement about any of that (from what I can tell).

Regarding in game rulings, however, I have found that the game is at its most fair when the rulings during the game are consistent with the listed rules given before the game. What that means is that during the game, I (as the DM) will enforce the rules as written even when they don't make any sense. In fact, it has always been my position that any argument that begins "but it doesn't work that way in real life" has no bearing on a D&D rules discussion (at least not in game). So in the racetrack example given above, in my campaign whoever lost initiave would lose, and that would be the end of it, regardless of the character's speed. The only time I will create house rules during the game, is when a situation arises that is specifically not covered by the rules at all, which is pretty rare.

My personal feeling is that playing the game "by the book" as much as possible is the best way to avoid personal bias either for or against the PCs. That is relevant to me because oftentimes I don't trust myself not to be biased. That being said, however, I would not be opposed to playing in a looser game run by a GM who I could trust not to be biased (and in fact, I have played in, and enjoyed such games).

Now, in between sessions, I can (and do) issue house rules for situations that came up during the game that I felt were unfair. For these rulings, I do not feel that I have to get approval of my players beforehand, and indeed, oftentimes these house rules are unpopular. However, I feel that when I am not under the pressure of running a game, I can be objective enough to issue house rulings that I believe are fair to all sides. These new house rules are distributed to the players before the next session, and if players want to change the way their characters are built as a result of the new rules, that is usually ok.

 

[Mistwell]

The real question is how much authority the DM has as legislator. One side feels that the DM explicitly needs the consent of the governed. The other side believes that consent in implicitly (and often explicitly) given when you appoint someone to be the DM and agree to play in his game.

For what it is worth, you are arguing Hobbs (Leviathan) vs. Locke (Two Treatises of Government) in it's most basic form. Celebrim is on the side of Hobbs in this debate, and those who disagree are on the side of Locke.

Locke won for western nations, by the way. But that doesn't mean he has to win for D&D.

Carry on...

 

[TheEvil]

But the real important point to me is how is that different from a PC exploiting an oddity of the rules to gain an advantage for themselves? Remember, unlike my strawman example, most situational oddities arise purely through some unforeseen chance. Why should we consider the DM's rigid adherance to the rules when it advantages the NPC's to be any better than the DM's spontaneous house rules that advantages the NPC's? And if we can't, isn't the real issue here something other than following or not following the rules?

The GM can set up situations in the game to take advantage of rule oddities far more easily then the players can. He controls the world afterall. The main reason that sticking to the RAW is more 'fair' then spontaneous house rules is that everyone has access to the RAW ahead of time and can make their decisions based on it. I will usually feel more aggreived if a GM's spontaneous HR kills my character then if a screwed up rule does. A good natured 'The rules killed my character' post may follow as opposed to a 'My GM is a total git' post. That said, I agree with you completely about the real issue, thus my more recent post.

Well, it seems to me that there are times when the movement rules (because no set of rules is perfect) impose unnecessary hinderances on character activities even in combat. In such cases, I much prefer the rule to be, "Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could."

The only problem I have encountered with this way of thinking is the absolutely amazing things people consider (or at least SAY they consider) reasonable/unreasonable. Back in 2E, I had my paladin stand over an unconcious character to protect him. The GM thought it was perfectly reasonable for the orc chief to chop of the character's hand, grab it up and run off without my paladin being able to do a thing because it wasn't his turn. God, I love AoOs. This situation also highlights some of the problems of older editions, since the rules didn't clearly spell out what should happen in this case.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ok, I only read the first and last few pages, but my 2 cents on this:

1) DMs are not gods. They do not have the right to do anything they want. They get all of their authority to adjudicate the game from the players. The game is for everyone to have fun, not just the DM. The role of a DM is that of co-storyteller (with the players) and rules adjudicator, not that of event police.

2) I consider fairness to be part of the fun. For fairness to occur, the rules should be followed. I have no clue why some DND players think that it is ok for the DM to change rules on the fly. In virtually no other game or sport played do rules change on the fly.

3) I have no problem with a DM making an on the spot ruling in order to get the game moving. I do have a problem with a DM ignoring the rule as written in order to accomplish some goal of his.

4) I have no problem with the DM and player disagreeing on the rule and the DM saying after a minute or so: "Ok, my ruling stands, let's move on and discuss it out of game". Remember, the game is supposed to be fun for all players, not just the DM. A reasonable short amount of time to discuss or quickly look up a rule is fine. But deciding to not allow a player any game time at all to question a rule in game is not fine.

5) I do not think a DM should ever fudge dice rolls to accomplish a goal of his (whether it is to keep a storyline going, or to save a PC or to save a re-occurring NPC or whatever). This to me is an aspect of fairness. In my game, I roll combat rolls in front of the players. The only rolls I keep secret are ones that the players should not know of or know the result of (e.g. a Spot roll by a hidden NPC or some such). Risk is a part of the game and if a DM fudges, it becomes less an element of risk as it becomes an element of DM whim.

6) Most of the time, the games I have played in as DM or player tend to be fairly reasonable. The people at the game are there to have fun and they give authority to the DM to adjudicate as he sees fit. I have had DMs abuse that authority in the past and when it happens, I step in as a player to stop it as I feel that is my right (e.g. I once quit a game in mid-session due to an extremely bad arbitrary DM ruling). Note, there is a difference between disagreeing on a rule and the DM making bad rulings because he wants to control the outcome of the game. I think most reasonable people can tell the difference.

7) DMs should discuss all house rules ahead of time (i.e. before they are used) with the group and should discard any house rules that a majority of the players have a hard time with. And, house rules should apply equally to PCs as they do to NPCs (unless it is a character building rule or some such).


To summarize, the DM should be fair across the board: no changing the rules, no fudging dice rolls. If the DM is fair, rules arguments tend to be few and far between. It is either when the DM does whatever he wants outside of the rules, or a player (or DM) does not know or understand a rule, that rules arguments occur. When that happens, the DM is the final arbitrator, but he should in all cases attempt to follow the rules when an argument comes up. If the player points to page 52 and states the rule on that page, if that is the proper rule, it should be followed by the DM. DMs should not change the rules (unless they have a previously defined house rule, or they get group agreement to make a house rule on the spot).

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, as DM, if you had foreseen that a chase would be necessary, would you advocate bonuses for mitigating cicumstances in these rules? For instance, if character A did have the Run feat, or if Character B was hobbled with a heavy backpack, would you allow a +2 or +4 bonus to this check, or a -2 or -4 penalty as the case may warrant, or would you run the rules straight up as defined in the DMG?

Well, first off, I would not have set up the race in a manner specifically designed to "game" the rules, as Celebrum has done. Secondly, given that the situation is apparently a life-or-death matter for the PCs (because if they lose, they get thrown in the volcano), I would have done some thinking and evaluating i[]ahead[/i] of time. Then I would have presented a "racing" rule to the players in advance, probably using the evasion and pursuit rules modified with circumstance bonuses clearly defined ahead of time.

Or, if you have not planned on a chase, and the circumstances had come up, would you only run the rule as written (which to me is a pretty skimpy rule after re-reading it in the SRD just now) without any circumstance modifiers, or would you add these in at the time?

If it had just come up "by chance", then it is highly unlikely that the life of the PCs would be hanging in the balance, in point of fact, there would be virtually no chance of that. In most cases, for something that "just came up", I'd go with the rules as written, and visit the issue later if it needed more work (i.e. I would bring up the possibility of a house rule in between sessions, and hash it out with the players).

 

[Storm Raven]

As an example, absolutely. But the wonderful thing about arguing with an absolutist is they still have to squirm around and defend thier position no matter how absurd your example is.

Or they could just say "that's a stupid example that any reasonable DM would have dealt with ahead of time, and a DM who didn't isn't worth bothering with." You see, you keep thinking you are somehow "scoring points", when in reality, you are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.