Resolving Conflicts Between Players and DMs

[Tormsskull]

The purpose of this guide is to put in writing the basic principles that most groups follow in my experience for resolving conflicts. I think a lot of times in debates between poster, each poster is speaking about a completely different style of gaming group, and as such the other posters have a hard time understanding them.

If your group has a different conflict resolution model than presented below, feel free to mention it and I will add it in.

Resolving Conflicts Between Players and DMs

When a conflict occurs between a player and a DM, the first thing to know is how the campaign was formed:

Type 1 Campaigns

A type 1 campaign is the traditional model, formed when a DM makes a world, often detailing it extensively, and then invites friends over to play in the campaign. Those potential players are told up front what the rules are that pertain to the campaign world that the DM is using. The potential players then decide if they want to be players in that campaign or not.

Type 2 Campaigns

A type 2 campaign is formed when a group of friends decide collectively to start playing D&D. This might occur after the previous campaign ended, or simply when they all have a chance to hang out. In type 2 campaigns, the players all discuss what kind of campaign they want to run, what rules will be used, what books are allowed, etc, in as much detail as the group decides to cover. Then they nominate (or take a volunteer) DM, and move right along.

Now that we know of the 2 most common types of campaign creation styles, we move on to the basic model for resolving conflicts.

Type 1 Campaigns: When a conflict occurs between a player and a DM, the player should plead his/her case to the DM, explaining why they think they are right, and the DM will decide.

Tips for Players:

In a type 1 campaign you have already agreed to follow the rules that the DM has laid out. If your conflict revolves around a rule that the DM let you know up front, be aware that most DMs aren't going to change the rules in the middle of the game, especially since you already knew of the rule in the beginning and agreed to play with that rule in effect.

If the rule caused unforseen consequences that you were not aware of, explain that rationally to the DM. Inform him why you think the rule is unfair now, and try to include other PCs or even world-balance in your argument for why the rule should be changed, as most DMs of type 1 campaigns are hesitant to change a rule that a player knew about up front, but now realizes it impacts their character alone.

Tips for DMs:

You have presumably made your players aware of the rules that go along with the campaign you have choosen to run. It is a very good idea to type these rules up and hand them to the players before they sign on to the campaign, and in that way you can make sure they are aware of all of the rules.

If during play you should realize that there is a rule that you forgot to mention, don't enforce it for that session unless it has wide-sweeping implications. Explain to your players that you forgot to include the rule on the list that you gave them, and make every effort to accomodate their characters if the rule is going to negatively impact them. Begin enforcing the rule next session.

The Final Judgment:

The DM has the final judgment in type 1 campaigns. He/she should try to be as fair as possible in his/her decisions, and players should be willing to defer to his/her judgment.

Type 2 Campaigns: When a conflict occurs between a player and a DM, both the player and the DM should present their case to the other players that are not directly involved in the conflict. The group should then, as a whole, vote on how to solve the conflict.

Tips for Players:

Since your group had an active hand in creating the rules that the campaign was going to follow, you should have every reason to abide by them. If you feel a particular rule had unforseen consequences, you should bring it up to the group, preferably outside of gametime.

Tips for DMs:

Since the group had an active hand in creating the rules that the campaign was going to follow, you should make sure to follow all of those rules, as you agreed to when you were nominated (or volunteered) to DM. Make sure not to build entire sessions around interpreted rules as the group as a whole might not agree with your interpretation, and as such the rule could change in the middle of the game.

The Final Judgment:

The group as a whole as the final say when it comes to rules arbitration in a type 2 campaign. The easiest and most efficient way to make a ruling on a dispute is a simple majority wins vote.

General Tips:

Regardless which type of campaign your group is playing under, being polite and respectful to everyone around the table is the best way to ensure that everyone remains having a good time. If a judgment ends up being made that you don't agree with, either by the DM or the group as whole, get over it. Do not dwell on the rule, or constantly make remarks about how the group made a mistake.

[DeathQuaker]

Neat idea. Some thoughts:

First of all, the key to resolving ANY conflict, gaming or not, is good communication:

1. If someone has a concern, listen to them ENTIRELY. Do not interrupt them and look interested in what they are saying. Expect (and ask, if necessary) the same in return. (This is harder than it sounds. We all wanna talk, and don't wanna listen, at heart. Most arguments I've seen start because people keep talking on top of each other rather than letting each other get heard out, which just adds frustration.)

2. Acknowledge the feelings of the person you're trying to resolve the conflict with. ("I understand you're frustrated because..."). That helps them feel like you respect their feelings--you can disagree with someone and still show respect. Lack of respect leads to unnecessary arguing and personal attacks, rather than resolving the issue causing the conflict in the first place.

3. Avoid passive-aggression at all costs. Sometimes it feels easier or more satisfying to use passive insults that don't address why you feel upset, or simply roll your eyes and huff, "Fine," when something's wrong. People are not telepathic, and they can't figure out why you're upset just because you're "slyly" intimating it. Also, for gaming specifically, don't "punish" the GM or player with silly character builds or encounters; that just invites competition. The only way you will resolve what's frustrating or upsetting you is discussing it honestly and openly with the other person.

4. Be politely assertive. As a corrolary to 3, when you express your frustration, be polite and clear when you do it. Don't yell, don't call names--again, that leads to personal attacks and probably won't result in fixing the behavior that's upsetting you.

General Rule of Thumb for Gaming:
As a player and GM, I try to operate with this standard: there is a "sacred contract" between player and GM.

For the Player's part, the Player agrees to abide by the GM's rules and respect that they are playing on the GM's turf.

For the GM's part, the GM ensures that their "turf" is a hospitable place to be, where the ultimate goal is to HAVE FUN together, not compete. To that end, they will be clear and fair about their rulings and they will not "pick on" players with unreasonable or unnecessary restrictions.

Tips for GMs:

1. State your rules up front, clearly, before the campaign begins.
2. Be consistent about your rulings. If you change your mind, explain to the players why and give a good, well-thought out reason.
3. If you are working with players new to a system, try to stick to the RAW as much as you can to avoid confusion. It's easier and far less frustrating on all sides to "experiment" with experienced players only.
4. Consult your players for feedback often.

Tips for Players:

1. Review and read your GMs rules and important campaign notes thoroughly.
2. Learn ALL the rules of the game, not just the parts that are convenient for you to know.
3. Don't all shout at the GM at once.
4. Accept a GM's ruling once it is made final. If you're in the middle of a session and you feel a GM's rule is very unfair, but it's already been hashed out, let it be until the end of the session, and then discuss it with your GM privately.
5. Frequently give your GM feedback about the game and make sure he's aware of what your own goals are.

Finally, For Both: Games are meant to be FUN. If there appears to be a personality conflict that seems unavoidable or unresolvable, sometimes--if talking it out doesn't work--it's just best to separate the problem players. If you're a player and your GM is driving you insane and won't change--get out. Find another group--it might take some time, but it's better to be without a game than be in a frustrating one. If you're a GM and you have a player you just can't deal with, politely ask the player to sit out, or put the campaign on hiatus until tempers can cool. It is NOT the end of the world to leave or postpone a game, really. And it's better sometimes to end a game than a friendship.

[Matthew]

Interesting ideas. I think you might want to include notes about prefabricated worlds, short campaigns and stand alone adventures.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

This should totally be stickied for this forum; these are awesome ideas; thankshya!:smallsmile:

[Winterwind]

Interesting thread indeed. I can't really say much about out conflict resolution procedures, since by now our group is almost perfectly tuned to each other, so we rarely have any conflict - and if we so, it is solved simply by talking in a pretty individual fashion - but I'd like to add a general remark:

Sometimes, the differences may just be irreconsilable. People can derive fun from so very different playing styles that there may be no intersection of interests. It is important to fully realise that - there are very different roleplayer types out there. And if one does not find any common ground it's probably better to split up. After all, it's not like it is the end of the friendship, or something - just that this constellation of roleplayers doesn't work.

[brian c]

Interesting ideas. I think you might want to include notes about prefabricated worlds, short campaigns and stand alone adventures.

For Prefabricated worlds, consult WotC with your balance concern. If nothing else, those folks are dedicated to only having well-balanced and fair game rules.




[/sarcasm] in case you couldn't tell

[Roog]

When a conflict occurs between a player and a DM, the first thing to know is how the campaign was formed:

Type 1 Campaigns
...
Type 2 Campaigns

The campaigns my group plays don't seem to really be Type 1 or Type 2, they are more of a mix. So is this Type 1 / Type 2 distinction normal, or do most groups play some sort of mix as well?

Our Type:
One player thinks up a campaign and possibly world. At this point they might ask for ideas or advice, but it is still very much their creation.
Then that player pitches the campaign idea to the rest of the group (possibly when the group is deciding what campaign to play when the current one ends, so as to give the next GM plenty of prep-time). The other players consider the pitch and may want to negotiate changes. If the group comes to a consensus that that should be the next campaign, then that GM runs it when the current campaign ends.

As for "The Final Judgment"
The GM has the final judgment within the campaign. He/she should try to be as fair as possible in his/her decisions while sticking to the agreement made at the beginning of the campaign, and players should be willing to defer to his/her judgment. But the group as a whole has the power to decide that the game is not working and that "we should play something else next week".
(Note: the group has never actually used that power without the GM agreeing that it would be a good idea to call an end to the game.)

[Tormsskull]

Interesting ideas. I think you might want to include notes about prefabricated worlds, short campaigns and stand alone adventures.

Good idea. I think prefabricated worlds mostly fall under Type 1 campaigns, though maybe a mention of how the DM should try to adhere to the rules of the world as much as possible could be added. Short campaigns and stand alone adventures could probably be thrown together in as a Type 3.



Sometimes, the differences may just be irreconsilable. People can derive fun from so very different playing styles that there may be no intersection of interests. It is important to fully realise that - there are very different roleplayer types out there. And if one does not find any common ground it's probably better to split up. After all, it's not like it is the end of the friendship, or something - just that this constellation of roleplayers doesn't work.


Yeah, maybe I should add in a section regarding conflicts that don't seem to be resolved by the methods listed above.



The campaigns my group plays don't seem to really be Type 1 or Type 2, they are more of a mix. So is this Type 1 / Type 2 distinction normal, or do most groups play some sort of mix as well?


I think the type 1 / type 2 covers most campaign creation types. The mix that you are talking about is usually a type 1 with the DM being very open to player input.



Our Type:
One player thinks up a campaign and possibly world. At this point they might ask for ideas or advice, but it is still very much their creation.
Then that player pitches the campaign idea to the rest of the group (possibly when the group is deciding what campaign to play when the current one ends, so as to give the next GM plenty of prep-time). The other players consider the pitch and may want to negotiate changes. If the group comes to a consensus that that should be the next campaign, then that GM runs it when the current campaign ends.


This is very classic type 1 campaigns. The player who wants to be a DM is creating his campaign and is willing to accept input from other players, but he still has total control over what input he accepts and what he doesn't. When he pitches it to the players they can choose to suggest changes, but the DM is still the final decider in what goes in.



As for "The Final Judgment"
The GM has the final judgment within the campaign. He/she should try to be as fair as possible in his/her decisions while sticking to the agreement made at the beginning of the campaign, and players should be willing to defer to his/her judgment. But the group as a whole has the power to decide that the game is not working and that "we should play something else next week".
(Note: the group has never actually used that power without the GM agreeing that it would be a good idea to call an end to the game.)


Also very classic type 1. Every DM should try to be as fair as possible, and players should be willing to defer to his judgment in type 1 campaigns. The group as a whole having the power to decide the game is not working is a right that a player (or players) always have, regardless of the type. They always have the option to, individually or as a group, suggest that the current campaign end and a new one begin.

Most often times IME a campaign where all of the players think it needs to end doesn't last long at all.