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

[Henry]

For some value of "different."

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

No, it's closer to Lynn Abbey's "Thieves' World" versus Poul Anderson's "Thieves' World."

 

[Celebrim]

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

Errr... how many team sports are good examples of non-competitive events?

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).

ERRRRR... THE DM IS ON A DIFFERENT TEAM THAN THE PLAYERS???? What the heck are you talking about? Everyone setting at the table is on the same team!!! The DM and the PC's are on the same team. If the PC party gets in a fight and the characters start trying to kill each other, the players are still on the same team!!! If everyone has fun, the whole team wins- DM and PC's. If someone doesn't have fun, the whole team loses. For the love of God, do you honestly think the DM is trying to win????? Do you think TPK's are fun for the DM??? Do you think the DM 'wins' when he kills PC's? If this was the case, the PC's would NEVER win.

In DND, some players do view it as them against the NPCs, especially in combat....Rules are in games for a reason and sporadically changing/ignoring rules is immature.

Clearly, we have very different ideas about what constitutes an immature attitude to role playing.

Very few people work well in an inconsistent environment and few people equate inconsistency with fun.

We also have a different idea of what constitutes inconsistancy. In my opinion, what the party expects is constitancy in your rulings - whether or not they know what the underlying rules are (because often the players don't). In the case where the rules produce radically different results than a common sense suggests, ei if they violate, "Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could.", then this is a much more serious form of inconsistancy than merely adjusting the rules as needed. You are assuming that the way to play is rules centric. All the players learn the rules and then phrase actions in terms of the rules (or are assisted in doing so), and then the DM just applies the rules to the action. I am assuming that the way to play is RP centric, and that players don't need to know the rules. All the players phrase thier actions in terms of the simulated environment - alluding to the rules only as necessary and then minimally - and then the DM seeks to apply the rules in the way that best covers the player's intention - consulting the player as necessary so as to be sure he understands the player's intention. Knowledge of the rules is only necessary in so far as it can make the DM's job easier and the game play more smoothly and quickly, but ultimately that the sort of consistancy expected by the players is largely rules independent.

In point of fact though, I as the DM seek to find and develop rules sets that require minimum on the fly adjustment by me - not because I don't have a right to adjust them - but the game just plays more smoothly if I don't have to invent solutions all the time.

If you must have an analogy to a team 'sport', D&D has alot more in common with 'mountain challenges' and 'ropes courses' than it has with soccer. Soccer is a competitive sport involving two teams. D&D is not. The DM sets a 'ropes course' filled with various intriguing challenges that the party must work together to overcome. If the DM - 'ropes course manager' - decides at any point, "OK, now you have to do this challenge with part of the group blindfolded', then that is part of the fun. What separates a good DM from a bad DM is simply that he makes the whole experience fun.

 

[IcyCool]

For some value of "different."

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

No matter who the dealer is, you can still play Texas Hold'em and 5 Card Stud.

 

[Celebrim]

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?

As an example, yes it is. But, since its easy to see why you would be confused - since D&D and poker are both games - then I won't hold it against you.

Now imagine that we decided to play DnD instead of cards. Why do I then get to change rules mid-game?

Because D&D is a fully open ended game without teams, without competition, without winners and losers, and with out a set of rules that fully covers every possible game situation.

Why do I then get to change rules without any notice?

Because you aren't changing rules to try to win. In poker, everyone is trying to win, so if someone changes the rules, it changes the chances of who wins, and people like to win and they like to have at least an equal chance of winning. In D&D, winning is simply having fun. There is no other 'victory condition' in the game.

I’m the DM? Who cares!

Because of all the players at the table, the DM is the one who most clearly sees that the game isn't about winning. The DM has the power of creation. There is nothing in the game that he can't create and add to it. There is nothing in the game he can't replace. So the DM has an infinite ammount of toys. If the DM loses one, its no big deal. The DM has a full toybox and he can play with anything he wants. Moreover, the DM has spent more time working on creating the game than any other player. You respect the DM the same way you respect anyone who has greater responcibility than yourself, or the way you would respect an artist who has devoted himself to gaining skill in something. Not respecting the DM is like not respecting the authority and sacrifice of the person who just prepared for you a lavish meal - and the greater the artistry of the 'cook' the more this is true.

On the other hand, the toys which the PC's have to play with are limited and they must protect them. So, the temptation to forget that the game is not a competitive one is greater.

But, to this extent I agree with you. If a PC forgets that the game is a cooperattive game, the loss of pleasure is smaller. But if the DM forgets that the game is a cooperative game, and begins to compete with the PC's - how terrible of a thing that is. The real issue is not therefore that the rules are flexible tools in the DM's hands, but why and how the DM uses them.

The group is there to have fun, not to worship the mighty DM.

Of course. Any DM who changes the rules in order to show off and brag is an idiot who has forgotten why he is the DM. Being a DM requires more maturity than that. But remember, the group is there to have fun, not tell the DM how to run the game. Any PC that forgets that has forgotten what the purpose of the game is.

Role playing games are just that, games. Games are fun things to do, but they need consistency, they need rules.

RPG's are not merely games. They differ from ordinary games in very important ways. For instance, its possible to play an RPG without knowing any of the rules. In fact, it can be alot of fun to play an RPG without knowing any of the rules. I've done it, so trying to convince me that it can't be done is impossible. It's also possible to play an RPG without any rules at all simply by cooperating and resolving conflicts as they arise. In fact, I've done that before too. One games combat system was nothing more than the two players took turns describing thier fight, and the one that felt that the other one had given the most entertaining description after a while conceeded the fight. That isn't to say that rules don't serve an important purpose, but only that RPG's don't need rules in the same way that ordinary games do.

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).

Do you see that the problem here is not with the rules change itself, but with the lack of fairness of the rule, having the wrong purpose in the rule change, and the lack of consistancy between the ruling and reasonable expectation - namely that full plate is specifically designed for mounted warriors (knights) precisely because its weight reduces the mobility of an unmounted warrior too greatly??

That really woke me up, and now I detest anything that smells like a DM telling a player how to role-play a PC.

Me too. It defeats the purpose of having players in the game if you are going to try to tell them what to do. You might as well just spend your time writing novels.

 

[IcyCool]

Because D&D is a fully open ended game without teams, without competition, without winners and losers, and with out a set of rules that fully covers every possible game situation.

Because you aren't changing rules to try to win. In poker, everyone is trying to win, so if someone changes the rules, it changes the chances of who wins, and people like to win and they like to have at least an equal chance of winning. In D&D, winning is simply having fun. There is no other 'victory condition' in the game.

These two comments are the best things you've said so far in this thread.

 

[Celebrim]

One extra thought for those people who think that the game is competitive and has teams or something.

If this is true, then the DM NEVER wins. Every time the DM plays, he always ultimately loses, and not only that but he loses several times a night. If that is the case, why does the DM keep playing? Would you keep playing a game in which you always lose? Does the DM lose the game because he's such a bad player and the PC's are just too smart for him? And why does the DM always stack the deck so that the PC's are ultimately found to have the advantage? Surely the DM could manage to stack the deck in such a way that he never lost, or is he just too stupid to do so?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Eep! My camp is moving away from my own oppinion and I'm starting to like what Celebrim has to say!

Eh, I've probably been in my own little corner the whole time anyway.

Sorry, I can't argue this point with you.

 

[Storm Raven]

ERRRRR... THE DM IS ON A DIFFERENT TEAM THAN THE PLAYERS????

Yes he is. He's also the referee. That's why it is critically important for him to stick to the rules and not make stuff up willy-nilly as he goes.

 

[Seeten]

One extra thought for those people who think that the game is competitive and has teams or something.

If this is true, then the DM NEVER wins. Every time the DM plays, he always ultimately loses, and not only that but he loses several times a night. If that is the case, why does the DM keep playing? Would you keep playing a game in which you always lose? Does the DM lose the game because he's such a bad player and the PC's are just too smart for him? And why does the DM always stack the deck so that the PC's are ultimately found to have the advantage? Surely the DM could manage to stack the deck in such a way that he never lost, or is he just too stupid to do so?

ROFL.

Celebrim for teh winnorz!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hmm, I'd like to point out in my game that the DM/player trust relationship goes both ways. If the DM makes a call that a player knows is against the rules, the player will just say so, state the rule, and the DM will usually just accept it. In the last one-off I played where I got to be a player, the DM made a troll charge a character and move into an adjacent square. I pointed out that you have to stop as soon as you can attack, and the DM accepted that, moved the troll back one square, and we moved on. No muss, no fuss.

[Addendum: there are a couple of group members who never get rules right, so we trust them that they think they're right, but mostly its me and another player who really know the rules.]

[Addendum 2: I never make a rules interprietation of mine seem more definite than it actually is. If there are multiple interprietations, I don't sweat it.]