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

[Tatsukun]

I still think the poker (or any other game) analogy holds water. DnD is a game, and it’s true that nobody wins in the end, but in a way there are a lot of little battles that can be won or lost (I am using “your character fails” as a “loss” here and “Your character achieves his/her goals” as “win” here).

It’s rather like the many hands of poker a group of friends might play. We’re talking a friendly game here, maybe in the “$1 max bet” kind of league. You play hand after hand, you win some and you loose some. Overall, you have fun, and nobody really wins big or looses big.

No imagine that while you are playing the dealer announces that fours are wild after he deals. That’s clearly a violation of the agreed upon rules. He can change that rule (make fours wild) before he deals, but not after; just as the DM can change a rule before the game, but not willy-nilly.

If you are still having trouble with the poker analogy, try this one…

You are reading a mystery novel. You get to the middle of the book and there are two people who stand out in your mind as suspects. Let’s say it’s ‘Mr. Butler’ and ‘Mr. White’. You know that the murderer had to climb a 50’ sheer wall to escape the police, and you are wondering how s/he might have done it.

Then, you get to the last chapter and the main character policeman announces that it was Mr. Butler who did it. “After all”, says the policeman, “he had a 10’ ladder, and the wall was only 10’ tall.”

You scan back through the pages and confirm that the wall has always been referred to as a 50’ sheer wall.

You flip back to the last pages, and one of the other guests says “I still think Mr. White did it!, after all, he has a 10’ ladder too!” To which the main character police man replies “Well, of course a 10’ ladder isn’t tall enough to get over the 50’ wall!”.

You finish the book, the end result is that Mr. Butler climbed the wall with his ladder.

Do you want to read another novel by this author? Of course not! His/her world lacks internal integrity. Rules and facts change as needed page to page to fit the story.

The changing of the height of the wall for one character only is not any different than the changing of a rule in DnD for one character (be it a PC or NPC). The author writing that Mr. Butler can climb the 10’ wall is no different than the DM announcing that the BBEG can’t be hit with ‘magic missile’ because he has ‘Blur’ running.

This actually fits nicely with the other point I made in my first post; that the DM should never try to regulate role-playing. I have heard of DMs who told players that their (Cleric) PC had been fighting in melee a lot, so his next level had to be fighter.

If you want to control the role-playing of the PCs, write a book. If you want other people to role play with you in a group setting, play DnD and don’t try to control the PCs.

Ok, that’s all. Hmm, this one is a little longer. I’m going to call this “My 3 cents”

-Tatsu

 

[Telas]

I was involved early on in this thread, and came back to see where it went.

Wow. Amazing how it's migrated.

Anyway, some things I see:

I don't think anyone has suggested that capricious rules changes in the middle of a campaign are a good idea. I do think it's the DM's right to do so, but I should hasten to add that to change rules without a good reason is a case of poor DMing. ("I just wanted to", "I didn't want to lose the argument", or "I can't figure out how to tell the story otherwise" are NOT good reasons. "I think you guys are taking advantage of this rule", or "I really don't see it working that way in my campaign" are better reasons.)

The difference is subtle, but is getting argued a lot. The fact that the DM is in charge of the group is pretty objective. Even the strongest proponents of the "social contract" or "democratic" approach agree that the DM has the final say.

On the other hand, the definition of "a good DM" is incredibly subjective. We can talk about DMing all day long, but our definitions of "good DMing" will probably differ (although there is usually common ground). Some apparently like RAW, with no variations that aren't approved by the players. Others have no problem with an "invisible mechanics" system. This is a matter of taste and opinion, not fact.

I'm not picking on either side in this debate, just pointing out that a lot of the arguments are either about an extreme example of what the other side suggested, or they are muddling the objective (the DM is in charge, even if he defers to the players), with the subjective (one's opinion on DM style).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: D&D is only as balanced as the DM.

Telas

 

[KarinsDad]

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

DND is a game Celebrim.

Just because it is not identical to soccer and other competitive sports does not mean that it does not have similarities.

And just because you want to focus on the differences does not mean that the similarities do not exist (you yourself pointed out that DND has it's roots in competitive wargames).

The important part of the competitive sports analogy is that just like sports and other games, DND has rules. And just like other sports and games, it is important to follow those rules so that everyone both understands the playing field, and can enjoy the game. It is a fairness and enjoyment issue.

If you cannot understand this and want to waste some more bandwidth on pages and pages of arguing why DND is not competitive at all, go ahead. Knock yourself out.

But your arguing will not change the fact that DND has rules and those rules should be followed unless the group agrees upon different rules.

Go read Tatsukun's poker analogy. Maybe that will clue you in.

 

[Celebrim]

Do you want to read another novel by this author? Of course not! His/her world lacks internal integrity.

I believe that that is precisely my point. The only thing we are actually disagreeing over is how the 'internal integrity' of the game world is best represented - by firm adherance to the rules, or by adherance to the reasonable expectations of the player of what is possible in the reality being simulated.

Looking at your mystery novel analogy, you see that you don't need rules to give you a reasonable expectation that a 10' ladder doesn't let you climb over a 50' wall. You wouldn't let a PC use a 10' ladder to climb over a wall even if he pointed out a place in a text that said: "This is a 10' ladder. It let's you climb over walls.", and said to you, "The rules don't say anything about how high the wall has to be. I have a reasonable expectation based on the rules that my ladder can let me climb over any wall. If you want to make a house rule about ladders only allowing you to climb over 10' walls, you should have told me about it." Likewise, your PC probably wouldn't accept as reasonable that the NPC climbed over the 50' wall using the 10' ladder if you could point out the above text. Granted this is a rather silly example, but the general point is that sometimes a strict and literal interpretation of the rules inhibits the internal integrity of the game world.

As for the poker analogy, I've already pointed out what I find wrong with that, and you have done nothing but repeat it.

...that the DM should never try to regulate role-playing.

But you and I don't disagree on that, although we might disagree on what 'role-playing' actually is given that the example you sited was explicitly related to rules mechanics. Let's just say that in addition to agree with you that the DM should never try to regulate role-playing, that I also agree with the broader assertion that the DM should respect the sanctity of the PC's character sheet and give the PC broad latitude in making choices related to it. Broad but not perfect latitude. For example, the DM in question was being a little silly and overly controlling in asserting that a cleric engaged in combat had to take levels of fighter; but on the other hand, the DM wouldn't necessisarily be silly and overly controlling if he denied a request by the PC to take a prestige class on the grounds that the PC lacked the necessary background and needed engage in some ammount of RP with the organization in question first. But in fact, this whole section of your argument is a red herring and isn't at all related to what is being argued.

If you want to control the role-playing of the PCs, write a book. If you want other people to role play with you in a group setting, play DnD and don’t try to control the PCs.

Again, no one is talking about controlling the PC's.

 

[Celebrim]

ulls hair out:

Just because it is not identical to soccer and other competitive sports does not mean that it does not have similarities.

Sure, ravens and writing desks have similarities, but that doesn't mean I can usefully use the one as an analogy for the other.

And just because you want to focus on the differences does not mean that the similarities do not exist (you yourself pointed out that DND has it's roots in competitive wargames).

That's rather irrelevant. Just because similarities exist doesn't mean that you can draw inferances about one based on your understanding of the other. If raven's and writing decks have simularities (sometimes they are both black, they both have quills on them, they are both real, they both have mass, they both are found on the Earth...) doesn't mean that you can then use those simularities to demostrate that ravens are a form of furniture.

The important part of the competitive sports analogy is that just like sports and other games, DND has rules.

Agreed. And raven's and writing desks both have mass.

And just like other sports and games, it is important to follow those rules so that everyone both understands the playing field, and can enjoy the game. It is a fairness and enjoyment issue.

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say that the one doesn't follow from the other before you stop asserting this as a tautology and actually try to prove your point? For the 101st time, its impossible for the assertion "it is important to follow those rules so that everyone both understands the playing field, and can enjoy the game." to be generally true, if in fact it can be demonstrated that RPG's can be played and enjoyed even though none of the players know the rules, and that its entirely possible for the players of an RPG to understand the playing field without knowing the rules.

But your arguing will not change the fact that DND has rules and those rules should be followed unless the group agrees upon different rules.

Which you are assuming axiomaticly despite my objections - none of which you ever do anything to address. Instead, you come up with imperfect analogies and think you've proven something of substance and that I'm clueless for not accepting that raven's are furniture.

Go read Tatsukun's poker analogy. Maybe that will clue you in.

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!

I'm really tempted here to say something nasty about using analogies in a debate, so I think I'm just going to shut up before a moderator has to step in. But, sheesh, you just don't get it do you?

 

[KarinsDad]

For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say that the one doesn't follow from the other before you stop asserting this as a tautology and actually try to prove your point? For the 101st time, its impossible for the assertion "it is important to follow those rules so that everyone both understands the playing field, and can enjoy the game." to be generally true, if in fact it can be demonstrated that RPG's can be played and enjoyed even though none of the players know the rules, and that its entirely possible for the players of an RPG to understand the playing field without knowing the rules.

You keep claiming this, but have yet to illustrate it to be true.

In fact, we have a Players Handbook PRECISELY so that players can understand the rules.

If that book was not needed for players, it would be called the DMs Handbook.

I do not need to prove my point since my point is derived from the basics of the game itself. There are rules to DND for people to use, hence, people should follow those rules, just like in any other game. That's one of the fundamental aspects of game playing in society.

You have yet to prove your point that the rules are irrelevant to the fun of the game. But, unfortunately for you, once the rules become irrelevant, it is no longer DND. It becomes some other form of RPG, closer to a LARP and a different game, regardless of how a DM is adjudicating it.

If the players do not know the rules and cannot make decisions based on that rules knowledge, then it is no longer DND and your point is moot regarding DND. Your point might be applicable outside of DND, but this rules forum we are talking on is a DND Rules Forum, not an imaginary RPG only the DM knows the rules Rules Forum.

What was your point again? Did you have one, or were you just arguing to argue?

 

[Grazzt]

DM makes a ruling that we follow then and there and after the session before the next sesion we look it up and learn the right way to do things.

That's what we do basically. If its something the rules don't cover, then whatever the DM (me) rules...goes, and that's that.

 

[Grazzt]

I believe Rule 0 was removed in 3.5. As for Rule 0...

Not really. Look on page 6 of the 3.5 PHB under the "Check With Your Dungeon Master" header.

 

[Grazzt]

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.

Very well said Seeten.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Not really. Look on page 6 of the 3.5 PHB under the "Check With Your Dungeon Master" header.

I guess I should have phrased it better. It isn't "Rule 0" anymore. Which annoys me.


Hmm arguing over whether or not soccer is a good analogy to D&D. I would like to point out the uselessness in this particular debate. Consider it pointed.