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

[KarinsDad]

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

In combat, DND is also a competitive event. The PCs (and their NPC allies) typically against the NPCs.

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.

Instead of shouting at me, maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote.

I did not say that the DM is on a different team than the players. I said the DM was equivalent to a referee.

I also said that the NPCs are (typically) on the opposite team from the players, especially in combat.

Learn to read more and shout less, and people will take you more seriously.

 

[werk]

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

I think we have a definitive answer for you.

We argue about them.

Yeah, that's my take on it too, lol.

 

[Celebrim]

Instead of shouting at me, maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote. I did not say that the DM is on a different team than the players. I said the DM was equivalent to a referee.

Believe me, I know exactly what you said, and the above clarification confirms it. As long as we are giving advice on manners out, how about assuming that if a person disagrees with you, he probably has some considered reasons for doing so and isn't merely unable to read.

I'm 'shouting' not because I'm angry, but because I want to make it clear how emphatically I disagree. If you prefer, I'll make the text bold and I apologize if it came off as a rant. By way of an excuse, I've been on the internet since 1990 and back then making your text bold wasn't an option. But, back on topic.

The DM isn't equivalent to a referee. That's precisely what I disagree with. In a competitive game, say soccer, no one would accept a situation in which the referee was also the coach for the opposing team, was also (all) the players on the opposing team, and also got to liberally sprinkle the field with obstacles of his choosing prior to the game, and also got to to bring in 'ringers' to play for his team whenever he wanted to. Yet this is precisely the situation that we have in D&D. Not only is the DM the referee, but he sets the strategy for the NPC team, he chooses all the actions for all the members of the NPC team, he gets to set up the field how he likes, and he can choose to if he wants bring in Freddy Adu and Landon Donovan to play against the middle school club teams. If D&D was in any way comparable to soccer, this situation would not in the least be acceptable. In point of fact, the ability to change the rules is just one minor card in this referee's pocket, and he certainly doesn't need to pull it in order to screw the PC's over or run an unfair game.

The DM is the NPC's (at least to the same limited extent that the players are the PC's). The NPC's exist solely in the mind of the DM (at least until he 'brings them to life' in this shared fantasy), and the PC's have no more ability over saying how the NPC's ought to be role played than the DM does over the PC's. The competition between the NPC's and the PC's can't be equated to the competition between two teams on a soccer field, because the competition between the NPC's and the PC's is not a fair one. For the game to work at all, the DM must be able to recognize that he's not competing with the PC's on behalf of the NPC's. A DM that doesn't recognize this doesn't need to change the rules. He could simply have all the 'circumstance bonuses' which the DM is given great latitude in applying fall on the side of the NPC's, choose NPC's that the PC's simply couldn't beat, and use his metagame knowledge about the PC's strengths and weaknesses to choose tactics on behalf of the NPC's knowing that the PC's do not have full metagame knowledge.

Where your argument falls apart completely IMO is that what you want to say (as far as I can gather) is that a good DM sticks to the rules as part of his lack of bias, but in fact sticking to the rules actually has nothing to do with a DM's bias for or against the PC's. It's just that in your experience DM's that don't stick to the rules were (in your opinion and I've know reason to doubt you) motivated by bias. You are understandably guilty of relating the two things, but in my experience biased DMing and sticking to the rules have nothing to do with each other. Thus, I have a counterexample to the claim, "Sticking to the rules is related to lack of bias." As I've just shown, a DM could be a hide bound rules lawyer and still treat PC's like props in his ego fulfilling fantasy. The only extent that I actually agree with you is that I agree that if someone is a heavly biased DM he is probably also likely to be so bad at his job and so insecure that he is likely to change the rules on a whim when things don't go his way, but the limited case of the reverse (merely breaking or changing the rules midgame) is not an indication of the former.

You could possibly argue that the DM is sometimes something like a referee, but the problem with that analogy (like just about any other analogy) is that its far too limited. The DM is most like a referee when arbitrating disputes between players or player characters. In such situations, a good DM sticks very closely to the referee model you are talking about because we actually have a situation that is something like having 'two teams' on the field. But the DM wears alot more hats than that. The DM is also something of a police officer (keeping players from cheating, not because that's unfair competition with the NPC's, but because its a form of unfair competition with the other players). The DM is also something of a judge, interpreting the laws and coming up with a fair solution. But the DM is also something of a legislator, creating new laws as the circumstances demand. Simple analogies for what the DM does, or for what the process of playing an RPG is are always just going to cloud the issue rather than explain it. That's why I prefer to avoid any sort of easy analogy and just talk about what is concrete and real. Trying to understand everything in terms of an analogy leaves you arguing over the applicability of the analogy, the exact analogy in question, the character of the analogy itself rather than the character of the thing that the analogy substitutes for and so forth.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Totally unintended. Both experienced and inexperience DMs make up house rules, and that is fine. I just prefer that the inexperienced ones, or those I do not know and trust already, use a more democratic method of doing it; and the experienced ones (who I also know and trust) do it more behind the scenes.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Totally unintended.

Oh, I know. Some people can get a bit unruly, though, so I thought I'd point it out. It's always sad to see people start flaming over a misinterprietation. And far too common.

Both experienced and inexperience DMs make up house rules, and that is fine. I just prefer that the inexperienced ones, or those I do not know and trust already, use a more democratic method of doing it; and the experienced ones (who I also know and trust) do it more behind the scenes.

Maybe I've been skirting the issue too much. Why is it necessary for a DM to change the rules mid-game? Why can't the DM just run with the rules as they are and find out if they are balanced through play before declaring the need to change them at a time when the DM is busiest? When running a battle is not the best time to decide if AbilityX should work the way it is supposed to, because many things in the game are going to change effectiveness based on the situation. This particular situation might just favor/disfavor AbilityX.

 

[Ninja-to]

I offer the D&D Rules Forum itself as my proof for why I have to disagree with this statement. Some players can't even agree on the rules as written, hence half of the threads in this forum, and the very reason why Nail asked the original question in the first place. The group has to have some form of final arbitration besides the rule books, if nothing but majority vote at the table, right or wrong.

Another very good point (minus my name being 'Nail' ).

 

[Mistwell]

Maybe I've been skirting the issue too much. Why is it necessary for a DM to change the rules mid-game? Why can't the DM just run with the rules as they are and find out if they are balanced through play before declaring the need to change them at a time when the DM is busiest? When running a battle is not the best time to decide if AbilityX should work the way it is supposed to, because many things in the game are going to change effectiveness based on the situation. This particular situation might just favor/disfavor AbilityX.

Because in my experience, it can sometimes actually be a much better game if the rules are appropriately changed as questions arise. A good, experience DM who both knows what they are doing and has a solid level of trust between the DM and the players can make the story a lot more interesting and flavorful sometimes if they are not so bound by the rules (and prior house-rules) that they cannot change things when the situation calls for it. But again, this is only in those limited situations where the DM really knows what they are doing, and the players know that as well.

 

[KarinsDad]

Believe me, I know exactly what you said, and the above clarification confirms it. As long as we are giving advice on manners out, how about assuming that if a person disagrees with you, he probably has some considered reasons for doing so and isn't merely unable to read.

Quite frankly, I could care less what your reasons are if you are going to state that I wrote something other than I did.

The DM isn't equivalent to a referee. That's precisely what I disagree with.

It is apparent that you did not understand what I was stating because you are taking it beyond the context.

I was talking about the competitive nature of combat and a DM's role as referee in that case. I was not suggesting that a DM is merely a referee in all situations.

The point you missed is that combat is very much an "us versus them" (PCs versus NPCs) competitive situation not unlike many sports, hence, it is imperative that the DM be impartial then, not unlike any referee in any sport.

Now, referee is not the only role of the DM during combat, he has multiple hats even then. But, I was discussing rule fairness in this thread and the DM's responsibility to be fair in combat situations.

If you want to discuss it beyond that reference, fine. But do not accuse me of meaning anything more than I wrote when doing so. That's lame.

 

[Celebrim]

It is apparent that you did not understand what I was stating because you are taking it beyond the context.

Let's see. I misunderstood you when you said that the DM was like a referee? You didn't say that, you said that the DM was not unlike a referee? Ahh... yes, there is in fact a difference to that at some level.

I was talking about the competitive nature of combat and a DM's role as referee in that case. I was not suggesting that a DM is merely a referee in all situations.

I don't know how much clearer I can be about this. The DM is not like referee in competitive sports, and competitive sports are not a good analogy for RPG combat. The DM is not like referee in competitive sports, period. I've already said that I don't think that RPG's are analogous to competitive sports, so why would you think that I think particular aspects of competitive sports are good analogies to particular aspects of RPG's. I'm not disagreeing with you in particulars; I'm disagreeing with you completely. It's best not to compare the DM to soccer referees at all, because you'll make false inferences about the nature of DMing if you do so. The analogy isn't good enough. If I said that the DM was like a referee, except that he was like a referee that coached one team involved in competition and also played in it at the same time you'd rightly look at me like I was crazy because referees aren't like that. Now maybe, if RPG's had a 'villian manager' that ran the NPC foils, and the DM merely arbitrated between the 'villian manager' and the PC's, then he would be something like a referee assuming that the 'villian manager' was actually trying his utmost to win (and not for example playing stupid NPC's as stupid, or animals as having only animal level understanding and motivations, and so forth) and was on a level playing field with the PC's. But of course, the more we try to make the game like a competitive game so that the DM can be like a referee, the more clear it becomes that the game isn't anything like a competitive game and the DM isn't anything like a referee.

The point you missed is that combat is very much an "us versus them" (PCs versus NPCs) competitive situation not unlike many sports, hence, it is imperative that the DM be impartial then, not unlike any referee in any sport.

Look, if you can name me five competitive sports in which one team always agrees to let the other team referee the game, then I'll concede to you that the DM is not unlike the the referee in many sports.

I don't really see why this analogy is important to you anyway, because if you try arguing a call with a soccer referee, you are going to get ejected from the game. Soccer referees for better or worse or the ultimate arbiters in the game, they don't have to take any lip, and throwing a rule book in their face isn't going to do you any good.

Now, referee is not the only role of the DM during combat, he has multiple hats even then. But, I was discussing rule fairness in this thread and the DM's responsibility to be fair in combat situations.

Only combat situations? Why not say something simple that we can all agree on, "The DM has a responcibility to be fair." I think we are well past needing to agree that DM's need to be impartial, and on to discussing what it means to be impartial and what rule fairness actually means. To me, the minute you start suggesting that the DM has to stick to the rules because combat is all about 'us vs. them', you've completely missed the point. At that point you are suggesting that the game is really about the PC's vs. the DM. You are suggesting that the DM is not like a referee, but like a competitor, and that one side has every right to get upset because the other side is cheating and gaining an unfair advantage and they might lose. All that it seems to show me that you keep suggesting that RPG's are like competitive sports is that you aren't terribly comfortable with the concept behind RPG's, which is that they are not like competitive sports.

In fact, its worth noting that the RPG was born - if I recall the story correctly - when one member of a group of bored grognards (it might have been Dave Arneson) suddenly had his Polish Husars cheat by firing a Star Trek phaser at the opposing medieval army, and it was suddenly realized that a cooperative free form fantasy might be more fun (at least on occassion) than the rigid structure of a game that actually was designed to be competitive.

If you want to discuss it beyond that reference, fine. But do not accuse me of meaning anything more than I wrote when doing so. That's lame.

I don't care how limited your going to make your meaning. It's a freakin' bad analogy.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because in my experience, it can sometimes actually be a much better game if the rules are appropriately changed as questions arise. A good, experience DM who both knows what they are doing and has a solid level of trust between the DM and the players can make the story a lot more interesting and flavorful sometimes if they are not so bound by the rules (and prior house-rules) that they cannot change things when the situation calls for it. But again, this is only in those limited situations where the DM really knows what they are doing, and the players know that as well.

I guess we get back to the whole fundamental difference thing again. I pride myself on my ability to make a great game within the structure of the rules. I, personally, think the mark of a good DM is knowing how to DM using the rules and not having to change them in order to help along the story or some "vision" of what he thinks the game should be.

Thus, I see making house rules on the spot during game as a weakness (my own personal oppinion that I hold myself to, please don't take offense). The DM wasn't able to make the game work, something went wrong, so he was forced to change the world to fit the story. In my mind, the story isn't something I write, but something that happens, and the rules are one of the means to discover just what that progression is. I often don't know what the NPCs will do until they do it, and I never know what the PCs will do until they do it.

See, if things arn't going the way I planned, I don't sweat it. If something is messing with the game like those outrageous Diplomacy builds I see on the boards, I'll probably talk it over with the player, but I'm not going to suddenly shift gears and run the skill differently, for example. If someone invests a lot into something only to find the ability not working as they origionally thought it would, then I've done something wrong. And if I start throwing modifiers at the PCs that they couldn't anticipate, then I don't feel that I'm being fair to my players. Likewise, they don't want me to make things artificially easier for them. They would hate that.

I'm not talking about adjudication of events that arn't covered in the rules. I'm not talking about handling an avalanche of snow, or pulling a rug out from under someone, or jumping from a horse onto a racing buggy while manacled to a very angry german shepherd. I'm talking about defined rules. If you have reach you can't charge into a square adjacent to the enemy; magic missiles always hit ethereal targets; a spellcaster's DC is 10 + ability score modifier + spell level. I can see no reason to ever ever change these during gameplay.

And, I've seen no examples of good mid-game rules changes, either.

I do all kinds of crazy stuff outside of game. The last game had an NPC that could (1/day) make a crystaline shield appear that moved to intercept any attacks until shattered. I make new templates all the time, as well as new monsters. I love to alter existing monsters to give the PCs fresh new experiences. Unique magical items are always prefered to DMG ones, and most wizards encountered have a unique spell that they researched. And, I have lots of house rules. So, don't misinterpriet that I never step outside the words in the rulebooks, I do. I just do it out of game and it always fits into the consistancy of the world that the game takes place in.

[EDIT: If I'm misinterprieting any of what you or Celebrim are debating, then I'll gladly admit that]