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

[ThirdWizard]

2) However, if I do not know my DM very well, or my DM does not have a great deal of DM'ing experience, I prefer the other method. That being: RAW plus previously-agreed-on house rules, and immediate (though short) discussion from all interested participants if a new rule on the fly is required. New rules on the fly should be agreed on by at least a majority of interested participants in such situations, not just the DM, however the DM should act as the arbitrator and mediator of the discussion, and break any ties. I'll call this the Inexperienced Democratic Abitrator-Mediator ("IDAM").

Oh yeah, I'm sure you weren't trying to, but it sounds like you're saying that DMs who want to follow the rules instead of make things up a lot are inexperienced. Might want to try and phrase things better next time or someone might get all huffy.

 

[Tatsukun]

Imagine this…

I invite my friends over for the evening. We all sit down at a table, decide to play poker, and the dealer deals our hands. I look at my cards, see three fours, and announce that fours are wild. The rest of the table screams that we already dealt, but I simply say that it’s my house, and I am always right.

Silly, huh?

No imagine that we decided to play DnD instead of cards. Why do I then get to change rules mid-game? Why do I then get to change rules without any notice? I’m the DM? Who cares! The group is there to have fun, not to worship the mighty DM. Role playing games are just that, games. Games are fun things to do, but they need consistency, they need rules.

Now, I have, as a DM been guilty of doing this very thing – and I have lost players over it. I once decided in the middle of a game that mage armor worked differently, because I had seen a cool way of doing it. The players went nuts, and we talked it over for a few minutes before I came to my senses and went with “precedent”.

Now, as a player, I have played in games where the rules changed week to week based on what the DM thought was ‘cool’. I have had a DM announce that Full Plate meant you couldn’t ride a horse, in the middle of combat, between a dragon and my mounted Paladin. The DM just tells me my PC has to get off his horse now (mostly so the dragon could attack better).

I guess what I’m saying is that if you (as DM) want to change a rule, you better have thought it out, announced it ahead of time, and you’d better have a good reason. If the world you create for your players isn’t set in a plane of chaos, things had darn well better work the same way every time (mostly).

I guess the other thing I don’t like about DMs changing rules mid-game is that some of those changes effect role-playing more than ‘crunch’. I (as a DM) once decided pretty much on the fly that one of the PC’s abilities worked differently, because I wanted to see what would happen. Not my proudest moment. The player in question mentioned that the DM has millions of NPC’s to role-play, and he just wants his PC left alone. That really woke me up, and now I detest anything that smells like a DM telling a player how to role-play a PC. That’s my new pet peeve.

Anyway, that’s my 2 yen.

-Tatsu

 

[TheEvil]

Oh yeah, I'm sure you weren't trying to, but it sounds like you're saying that DMs who want to follow the rules instead of make things up a lot are inexperienced. Might want to try and phrase things better next time or someone might get all huffy.

I thought what he wrote was very well said, though after your comment, DAM probably would have been a better choice.

 

[IcyCool]

Imagine this…

I invite my friends over for the evening. We all sit down at a table, decide to play poker, and the dealer deals our hands. I look at my cards, see three fours, and announce that fours are wild. The rest of the table screams that we already dealt, but I simply say that it’s my house, and I am always right.

Silly, huh?

This is a flawed example. There is a fundamental difference between players and a DM. Your example uses all players. Your example also uses a game where there is ultimately one winner and the rest are losers (this is not the case in D&D). Also, the exact same game can be played without the "rule-change" (who you are equating with the DM). As a DM, I can't decide to not run a game anymore and still have the players play that game.

 

[Henry]

I invite my friends over for the evening. We all sit down at a table, decide to play poker, and the dealer deals our hands. I look at my cards, see three fours, and announce that fours are wild. The rest of the table screams that we already dealt, but I simply say that it’s my house, and I am always right.

Silly, huh?

A lot of people use this analogy (that of comparing D&D to conventional games), but the analogy isn't accepted by everyone, myself included, because D&D is not a conventional game. The DM by the nature of the role holds more power than anyone else at the table; it's the way it's been since the inception of the game; if it were not true, then DMing could be done by a computer that furnished the exact proper challenge level every time - you'd even take the human error out of the equation by pre-furnishing random charts that generated the adventure for you; that's just what it implies to me.

Instead, a DM needs to be able to make an entertaining story, to challenge their players, and keep people getting what they want from the game, and to do this the rules as written may not always be the best way. For players who are solely "tacticians", "power gamers" and "butt-kickers" (using Robin Laws' definitions of the "emotional kick," or for players who prefer the "simulationist" style of game, as defined in GNS theory), this may work; for players who are "method actors" and "story tellers" and even for "specialists" (Robin Laws), and especially for those who like "narrativist" games (a la GNS theory) this will not be the best way to go about it.

I'm more of a "storyteller" type, as is I suspect Celebrim is, also - if a DM has the status of any other player in what he can contribute to the game, and is MANDATED to put in the challenges as listed in the DMG, no more, no less, then the game holds no more appeal to me than D&D minis, or a pre-scripted Neverwinter Nights module, or any other computer game - a fun diversion once in a while, but not why I play RPGs. I take this attitude whether I'm running a game or being a player - I like to know what the rules are ahead of time, but I also accept that what a DM says during a game, goes. The show, to recall a phrase, must go on.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is a flawed example. There is a fundamental difference between players and a DM. Your example uses all players.

And a dealer - who, before he deals, can certainly decide what form of poker a given hand will be and what wildcards will be allowed.

As a DM, I can't decide to not run a game anymore and still have the players play that game.

Actually, you can. You step down as DM, someone else steps in, and the campaign proceeds apace.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is a flawed example. There is a fundamental difference between players and a DM. Your example uses all players. Your example also uses a game where there is ultimately one winner and the rest are losers (this is not the case in D&D). Also, the exact same game can be played without the "rule-change" (who you are equating with the DM). As a DM, I can't decide to not run a game anymore and still have the players play that game.

There are plenty of team sports though that are a good example.

Soccer: Two teams (PCs and NPCs). The referee (DM) decides to start making bad calls (e.g. changing the rules, fudging the dice rolls). One team wins (survives), the other team loses (dies).

In DND, some players do view it as them against the NPCs, especially in combat. Changing the rules on the fly is unfair and if done to an extreme, harmful to the fun of playing, it does not matter if it is DND or if it is soccer.

Rules are in games for a reason and sporadically changing/ignoring rules is immature. Very few people work well in an inconsistent environment and few people equate inconsistency with fun.

Changing rules ahead of time and getting buy in by the group where everyone is apprised of the playing field is fine. Doing it on the fly is not.

 

[Storm Raven]

A lot of people use this analogy (that of comparing D&D to conventional games), but the analogy isn't accepted by everyone, myself included, because D&D is not a conventional game. The DM by the nature of the role holds more power than anyone else at the table;

And that power imbalance is exactly why the DM should use the rules as written, and why the players should be entitled to expect that the DM will do so.

 

[IcyCool]

Actually, you can. You step down as DM, someone else steps in, and the campaign proceeds apace.

Which, of course, means that it becomes a different game. I can pass of my DM notes and plot to the new DM, but it won't be the same game. Do you see the difference there? They will still be playing D&D, but they won't be playing "IcyCool's Birthright Campaign".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which, of course, means that it becomes a different game.

For some value of "different."

It can still be D&D, though. And aren't Texas Hold'em and 5 Card Stud both poker?