player over riding dm!

[Henry]

So the next game, in order to head off these kinds of game breaking things, I declared up front, a few things:

1) I don't always know all the rules off the top of my head. If you think I have a rule wrong, say so, and I reserve the right to follow what you say. I also reserve the right to ignore that rule in the name of SPEEDING UP GAME PLAY. When we have TIME, we can go back and look up the rule. If I was wrong, we will play things correctly from then on UNLESS the RAW aren't as much fun, in which case I reserve the right to ignore the rule and use my own. I will be consistant about this.

2) I sometimes fudge dice rolls. If you catch me doing this, SAY NOTHING. Ignore it. I -will- try to be fair, and honestly, I fudge dice rolls in your favor about as often as against it.

I also threw in a bunch of rules about player-to-player conduct. I do NOT want to see a group break up over such pettiness again. Thankfully, my new group is darn cool, and we're having a BLAST.

In my opinion, this is what a DM's job is; it's what he or she SHOULD be doing. The rules above may vary, but they served a point in Fierari's game: The purpose of a referee is to keep things fun and speed up game play. (There are other goals I like to add, like challenge the players as well as the characters, and keep 'em wanting more, but they vary by gaming group.) You can argue rules, or you can play, but you can't do both at the same time.

 

[devilish]

What if the Ref doesn't know what off-sides is, calls pass interference on plays with no passing, whatever else that horrible refs do...then that sorry excuse for a ref gets fired and will never be seen again (hopefully).

But it's not the role of a single player to pull a ref out of the game.

If the DM is lousy, then the table should and probably will pull him.
If the player is out of line, then there *needs a smack-down*.

-D

 

[The Sigil]

Having DM'ed for 20-odd years now, I have found that the following guidelines generally make things easy for everyone, players and DMs alike. The number one goal of gameplay is to have fun. To reach that primary goal, things need to keep moving, and so speed and streamlining is goal number two. Complete adherence to the written rules is tertiary to the above two goals; i.e., if we can't have fun, keep things moving AND adhere to the rules, the rules are the first thing to go.

1 - I will be honest and up front with my players about my rules knowledge - to wit, any time a player tries to do something and I know that I don't know the specific rule to handle it, I will immediately make that known.

2 - If I make it known that I don't know the specific rule to handle it, the players have exactly 30 seconds - no more - to give me a page reference (PHB/SRD only) that handles the situation.

3 - If no player comes up with a page reference in the given amount of time, I make a ruling "on the spot" that is specifically NOT precedent-setting past the current gaming session. I make note of the situation and the rule in question; after the session (maybe later in the week), I research the rule. At the beginning of the NEXT session, I advise the players of the correct ruling, and it is played that way from that time forward... but there is no "ret-conning" of results if I goofed.

4 - A player that has a disagreement with my interpretation of the rules is welcome to take me up on it after the session. If I do not say I don't know something and he sees me doing something wrong, he is NOT to interrupt the session; rather he is to talk to me afterward and educate me. In other words, if I didn't ask for help with the rules, don't try to quote the rule to me during play. If I do have a bad understanding of a rule, again, I announce the change in ruling prior to the next session - but again, no "ret-conning."

I make it clear to my players that they are welcome to discuss my rulings with me after the gaming session (though there will be no ret-conning) but are NOT welcome to bog the session down with rules discussion. When we get together, the point is to play the game, not to argue about the rules.

To extend the sports analogy, it is the job of the referee to make "on the field" (i.e., mid-game-session) rulings. If the referee's understanding of the rules is lacking, the time to correct that is NOT during gameplay, as this slows the game and ruins the fun of others as well, as they wait for the argument to subside; the time to correct the lack of understanding is "off the field" (i.e., not during game sessions) - this does not disrupt the game.

A player letting me know when I've goofed is appreciated, provided he does so in a manner that does not disrupt play. In fact, I've even given credit where it is due and told my players, "so-and-so pointed out Rule X to me this week on page Y of the PHB, and I've been doing it wrong up until now. Going forward, we will do it this way..."

A player who wishes to disrupt the game - for ANY reason (including mandating strict adherence to the rules) is not welcome at my table. A player who is more knowledgable than me and is willing and able to help me increase my understanding of the rules - provided he does not disrupt my game - is MORE than welcome, and is in fact a valuable resource.

Finally, I always make it clear to my players that I may NOT be using the "Standard MM monsters" or what have you; I may have made my own modifications, so the Monster Manual is NOT necessarily the definitive Bible (i.e., "we did 60 points of damage and the MM entry shows a maximum of 55 hp - it's gotta be dead!" won't work with me). Note that in the above, I have only allowed players to use the PHB for reference. In other words, you're more than welcome to tell me how YOUR character should work, but since you don't have MY character sheets in front of you (monsters, NPCs), don't try to tell me how MY characters should work - you may well be very wrong.

--The Sigil

 

[jmucchiello]

2 - If I make it known that I don't know the specific rule to handle it, the players have exactly 30 seconds - no more - to give me a page reference (PHB/SRD only) that handles the situation.

Interesting how something that might take 35 seconds to look up (or is in the DMG and the SRD per se isn't present) forces a potential situation where the player who knows your ad hoc ruling is hosing him and thus HE ISN'T HAVING FUN doesn't in some way violate your original premise that having fun is paramount.

You say disrupting the game for a rules discussion means someone is not welcome at your table. Quite frankly I don't see why the person screwed would come back. Draconican enforcement of flow of game (and no retconnning) is not necessarily any more fun that getting it right the first time after a 5 minute research break. YM(Obviously)V.

 

[Mallus]

Quite frankly I don't see why the person screwed would come back.

Maybe because taken as a whole, the campaign is fun?

As a DM, I'm always willing to listen to my players correct me as far as the rules are concerned. But I have final say. And I make mistakes. But think it takes more than a few DM calls not going a PC's way to ruin a game...

 

[Arnwyn]

If I do not say I don't know something and he sees me doing something wrong, he is NOT to interrupt the session; rather he is to talk to me afterward and educate me. In other words, if I didn't ask for help with the rules, don't try to quote the rule to me during play. If I do have a bad understanding of a rule, again, I announce the change in ruling prior to the next session - but again, no "ret-conning."

That guideline wouldn't last one second with our group. Of course, my players (and myself) value consistency far more than "speed of play". Anything that speeds up play but (even remotely) has detrimental effects on the PCs firmly goes into the "not fun" category. Even the inconsistency itself, regardless of who it affects, is enough to lower the enjoyment for my group far more than what speed of play would improve.

Speed of play is highly overrated.

You say disrupting the game for a rules discussion means someone is not welcome at your table. Quite frankly I don't see why the person screwed would come back. Draconican enforcement of flow of game (and no retconnning) is not necessarily any more fun that getting it right the first time after a 5 minute research break.

Absolutely. You said it perfectly. (In fact, it isn't more fun.)

Actually, I can only see The Sigil's guideline working in most groups if the DM is infallible and/or never ever errs against the PCs. Count me as a skeptic.

 

[shilsen]

Here's how I handle it. I put some related points in the "playing the game" section of the campaign intro (for an Eberron game) I sent my players:

* Though the campaign is set in the Eberron Campaign Setting (ECS), it is my ECS, which is not necessarily the same as the printed version. Institutions, NPCs, geography, history, basic rules, etc. may all be different in this game. A simple example is that I am not using the kalashtar race, though it is listed in the ECS. Unless your PC specifically knows something as a fact (Knowledge skills will be important in this campaign), don't assume that it's true just because it's in the book. This is also true of any book that I may use, esp. monster books. Don't assume that because I use a beholder it has the same stats as in the MM. If your PC has the appropriate Knowledge skill or experience then you will know things about the creature, but your player knowledge will mostly be irrelevant, and should not affect in-game actions anyway. Metagaming will hurt you more than it will hurt the opposition.

* Feel free to correct me at the table if I get a rule wrong (I hope you will be fair enough to do so whether it benefits the PCs or not) or if you disagree with a rules interpretation. Once I have heard you and made a ruling, whether you agree or not, do not argue. We will continue with the game and discuss any disagreements later, during a break or over email.

 

[Saeviomagy]

But it's not the role of a single player to pull a ref out of the game.

If the DM is lousy, then the table should and probably will pull him.
If the player is out of line, then there *needs a smack-down*.

See, this might be the case if the ref were a professional or something, or if he'd been somehow vetted and properly qualified before the match.

If he's just some guy who happens to be wearing the striped jersey today, then I don't think he can expect immunity to criticism.

For my point of view, I think a better tack to "laying down the rules" is to suggest a code of conduct for rules-lawyers. I did this after I realised that I wasn't necessarily helping the game by arguing the GM's bad calls.

1. I'll only argue a point if it makes a genuine difference to the game. If it's a point of damage when attacks are routinely doing 20 or more, and it leaves someone with plenty of hitpoints, I'll let it slide. If it's a point of damage that makes the difference between 1 hitpoint and 0 hitpoints, or 0 hitpoints and -1 hitpoint, I'll argue it.

2. I'll never try to turn a GM's concession into a bigger advantage.

3. I will get the page reference ready for my own arguement, or accept a volunteer to find the page reference. I'll never expect the GM to find the page reference.

4. If the page reference proves me wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong.

5. If the player affected by a ruling doesn't care, I won't pursue the arguement.

6. If I don't know the actual numbers (ie - if I think a monster should be down by now, because it should only have about 50 hitpoints), I won't argue the point. I may, however, comment. Like,
"Wow - this thing is tough. We've done like 63 points of damage to it and it's still not down!"
Or,
"Damn, that guy must have some serious modifiers to his sense motive to beat that 63 bluff check - Normally that would convince someone of something he's averse to with no supporting evidence at all!"
You know - enough to make sure the DM is aware of the situation without saying "you're doing it all wrong!" and slowing the game down.