PDA

View Full Version : It takes two to rules lawyer.



Talakeal
2017-07-15, 01:19 PM
So whenever I see a list of "tips for good gaming" it always includes instructions not to rules lawyer. But in my experiance it is never so simple, it normally goes like this:

Player A takes an action.
Player B believes that action is against the rules and says something.
Player A defends their position.

Then they argue for a bit before grabbing a rulebook.

Then one of three things happens:
1 The rule is clear and the argument is resolved.

2 The rule is ambigious and the argument continues.

3 One of the people simply refuses to admit the possibility that were wrong by either refusing to look at the book, or using tortured logic to justify their position, or they simply resort to threats like "its my house" "its my book" "im the dm and i say so" or "you are a rules lawyer and i refuse to achnowledge rules lawyers".


So in this scenario who is the rules lawyer? A or B? Is it whoever is right? Is it whoever is wrong? Whoever gives in first? Whoever gives in last?

Now, a lot of people will simple fall back to DM authority, but DMs are fallible human beings too, they can both get the rules wrong and be pedantic twits just like the rest of us.

My previous terrible DM found my core only human fighter to be OP and would constantly make up rules (which he insisted were RAW) to nullify my abilities and then refused to hear any argument from a rules lawyer like me.
On the other hand I constantly here people talk about how rules stickler DMs are bad and that they should always let players abilities work kf they follow the "rule of cool".

Xuc Xac
2017-07-15, 01:30 PM
The one using tortured logic to justify their position is the rules lawyer, because that's what a rules lawyer is.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-15, 01:54 PM
The rule of cool isn't really about circumventing rules lawyering, as I understand it. It's more about not letting the rulebook be a wet blanket when everybody around the table wants something to work.

As stated, rules lawyering is when someone starts using tortured logic to defend their interpretation of the rules.

I'm okay with the GM settling any rules arguments. Sure, he's human and fallible, but he tends to have fairly good system mastery and is the one in charge of the setting's unity to begin with.

Fri
2017-07-15, 02:08 PM
Also, I learned from experience that it's often important to let rule debate go, for the sake of the game's flow. You can research it later after the game for next session or something, but a dm must be able to quickly settle something rather than pausing the fight for 45 minutes while everyone search for things on books or debate on which interpretation is correct. I consider it one of the more important thing that a good gm must do, and the thing that everyone in the game must understand, besides things like having everyone on the same page on the game's genre and deadliness level.

Khedrac
2017-07-15, 03:12 PM
The one using tortured logic to justify their position is the rules lawyer, because that's what a rules lawyer is.
I would disagree with this position. The rules laywer is the one who knows (or thinks he knows) the rules well enough to call it when other people deviate from the correct rules, hence player B in this case.
A good rules laywer will try not to interrupt the flow of the game, possibly not saying anything until later, or just murmurring something like "are you sure that is the correct rule?" but will also be ready and willing to respond to any query as to the correct rules.
A bad rules laywer is one who interrupts the flow of the game and argues with the DM halting play.

Good rules laywers can be a real boon to a party as they can be far quicker to ask than referencing the rulebooks for the more obscurely positioned rules.

The players who twist the rules to achieve what they want can be either good or bad rules laywers (or neither), but are probably powergamers.

Xuc Xac
2017-07-15, 03:32 PM
There are no good rules lawyers. A rules lawyer isn't just someone who knows the rules well. Describing such a person as "a good rules lawyer" is like calling a judge a "good criminal".

vasharanpaladin
2017-07-15, 08:01 PM
A lawyer interprets laws. Lawyers are not by definition "good" or "bad;" these are labels derived from behavior.

The rules lawyer can, therefore, be "good" or "bad" just as his namesake can. A player knowledgeable enough about the rules of the game to be trusted by the rest of the group to interpret them is thus a "rules lawyer" and in fact can be handy to have around as it reduces the need for tedious page-flipping. The problem comes when someone thinks he knows the game well enough to do this and does so without prompting. The good lawyer speaks when consulted; the bad chases ambulances with the devil's tongue.

That there are some people who believe that rules lawyering is inherently malicious speaks to poor experience with the latter sort of player.

Thrudd
2017-07-15, 08:06 PM
The rules lawyer is someone who always calls out others or the DM on rules violations or misuses and is a stickler for rules being followed by-the-book (even if they aren't the DM). Some of them just want the rules to always be followed consistently, others will be trying to use their rules knowledge to find power-gamer combos and loop holes and will argue for RAW so they can use them.

Someone could suggest that a rule has been violated without necessarily being a rules lawyer, if it is only an occasional thing. Someone who regularly does this could qualify as a rules lawyer, though this is not necessarily bad if the other players and DM are really shaky on the rules.

As soon as a rules question arises, the DM should either look up the rule or make a ruling and the argument should be over. If you're a player, it does no good to argue with the DM, even if you're absolutely certain you are correct about the rule in the book. Let it go and bring it up after the game.

If you're the DM, if you decide to make a ruling without consulting the book it would be diplomatic and polite to suggest that the issue be tabled in order to keep the game going but it will be looked up later. Unless the rule is going to cause a character death or completely change the outcome of something important, let it slide and take it up later. If a rules lawyer is constantly stopping the game with rules citations, to the extent that it is disrupting play or becoming annoying to everyone, politely tell them to hold their concerns until afterward unless something like a character's life is on the line.
Don't just say "I'm the DM, so I make the rules and you shut up". Even if it's true, that's a bad attitude that causes conflict. A game never warrants being rude like that.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-15, 08:08 PM
At least in my experience, the term "rules lawyer" refers to a person who tries to use the letter of the rule to subvert the intent of the rule.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-15, 08:18 PM
A rules lawyer enters a room filled with gamers and starts doing his rules lawyer thing. Then an idiot enters the room and says "it takes two to rules lawyer". Finally a jerk comes into the room and documents it then posts it on line.

Nifft
2017-07-15, 08:40 PM
There are no good rules lawyers. A rules lawyer isn't just someone who knows the rules well. Describing such a person as "a good rules lawyer" is like calling a judge a "good criminal".

This agrees with my understanding of the term.

A person who knows the rules, and knows how to apply the rules to good effect, is a skilled player.

Skilled players can disagree about the rules -- it's quite possible for one or more people to be just plain wrong, without any malice or trickery intended on either side. This sort of disagreement can be easily resolved through research and discussion.

Disagreement is not the same as rules-lawyering.

Quertus
2017-07-15, 08:43 PM
Well, I'm a self-proclaimed rules layer. But I'm very much against the notion of torturing logic to defend a position - to me, the only position worth defending is the logical one.

I often rules lawyer in ways that are disadvantageous to my character, as I have more of a vested interest in the logic and continuity of the game than I do in my character's success on a given action. Few things are worse than the taste of a falsely earned victory.

Now, I also happen to enjoy a good rules debate, and am sad that it takes two to rules lawyer. If I could rules lawyer in a CRPG, I might not need you bloody humans any more to get my RPG fix. :smallwink:

But, yes, I hate it when GMs have a position they insist on holding despite all logic to the contrary. That kind of rules lawyering I find unacceptable. Happily, these days, I usually only play with GMs who happily accept or even ask for advice from the players with good rules knowledge.

D+1
2017-07-15, 09:25 PM
Nobody can rules-lawyer without the DM's complicity.

RazorChain
2017-07-16, 03:57 AM
So whenever I see a list of "tips for good gaming" it always includes instructions not to rules lawyer. But in my experiance it is never so simple, it normally goes like this:

Player A takes an action.
Player B believes that action is against the rules and says something.
Player A defends their position.

Then they argue for a bit before grabbing a rulebook.

Then one of three things happens:
1 The rule is clear and the argument is resolved.

2 The rule is ambigious and the argument continues.

3 One of the people simply refuses to admit the possibility that were wrong by either refusing to look at the book, or using tortured logic to justify their position, or they simply resort to threats like "its my house" "its my book" "im the dm and i say so" or "you are a rules lawyer and i refuse to achnowledge rules lawyers".


So in this scenario who is the rules lawyer? A or B? Is it whoever is right? Is it whoever is wrong? Whoever gives in first? Whoever gives in last?

Now, a lot of people will simple fall back to DM authority, but DMs are fallible human beings too, they can both get the rules wrong and be pedantic twits just like the rest of us.

My previous terrible DM found my core only human fighter to be OP and would constantly make up rules (which he insisted were RAW) to nullify my abilities and then refused to hear any argument from a rules lawyer like me.
On the other hand I constantly here people talk about how rules stickler DMs are bad and that they should always let players abilities work kf they follow the "rule of cool".

I can only tell how I resolve this as a GM. I will make a ruling which almost never happens as I'm a stickler for rules but at least I will act as arbiter and judge the issue on the spot. After the game we can rummage through the rule books and discuss the rules but as a GM I usually decide the issue if the rules aren't clear enough and sometimes we come upon an agreement for a houserule that will be noted down.

To change characters abilties as written in the rules is usually a bad form. Rules are the common ground for both player and GM on how the game is played and how the players can interact with the world within the scope of the game, changing them on the fly will lead to disgruntled players. If GM wants to change rules he should do so before the game starts so everybody is on the same page.

Sometimes it happens if you have a mature group that all the players (GM included) come to an agreement that some power/spell/skill/rule or whatever is clearly overpowered or broken. In such a case it's best to come upon agreement how it should be adjusted or just removed from the game.

Guizonde
2017-07-16, 07:08 AM
thanks to these boards, nowadays, when i don't know who i'm playing with, i actually ask what will happen during rules debates in games during session 0. usually it falls into either:

it's quick and somebody pulls out a rulebook.

or:

team vote for what happens and we'll sort it out properly during the debrief, changing our call if it's wrong.

last time it happened, our resident half-ork paladin got thrown overboard and managed to grab on to a ballista. someone wondered if he'd take the ballista into the depths with him or not. no clear idea where to look, so we agreed he fell overboard and damaged the ballista. during the debrief, we checked and a 350lb weight would not have carried a 500lb bolted-to-the-deck ballista over a rail. so he left scratches in the woodwork, all in all a bit better long-term as a call.

all this to say that we try to avoid bogging down the game with arguments during play. i've played with rules-lawyers that almost ended in blows being exchanged, and a couple where tears of rage were shed. i don't play pen and paper for this. i play it to have fun and to solve problems quickly.

AMFV
2017-07-16, 07:48 AM
A.) Rules Lawyer isn't a term with a largely agreed on definition. So you're going to have some trouble there, as I see you already are.

B.) I think that the situation where Rules Lawyering is really a problem is if you're in a group or using a system where the DM/GM is viewed as a "referee" or "official" because then you're basically arguing with the judge after the ruling about their ruling, which is kind of a pointless thing to do and is generally seen as obtuse and even legally actionable.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 01:54 PM
Yeah, I think the lack of a solid definition for "rules lawyer" does create a lot of the confusion.

Someone posted a link to this article in another thread: http://lookrobot.co.uk/11-ways-better-roleplayer-safe-work-version/

Which includes the following quote:

"SIX. Know the system, don’t be a jerk about it.
If you know a system, you are easier to GM for, because you know your character’s limitations. You can calculate the rough odds of a particular action succeeding or failing, just like in real life. You can make prompt assessments of situations and act accordingly, because you understand the rules of the world.
(New players, of course, get a free pass on this one. But do make an effort to learn the rules, obviously, if you’re keen on sticking around in the hobby.)
But for the love of God, don’t rules-lawyer. Do not do that. It is not hard to work out, because here is a simple guide – if you are arguing over a rule for more than twenty seconds, you are a rules lawyer. You are the Health and Safety Inspector of roleplaying games, and you need to stop talking, because you are sucking the fun out of the game.
There are times when the rules are wrong, and that’s fine, but I’m hard-pressed to think of that time the guy remembered the rule and we all laughed and had a great time because he made the GM change it."

Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-16, 02:01 PM
You go with the GM's.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 02:14 PM
You go with the GM's.

Yeah, that's a common response, but in my mind "never question the GM," and "don't be a rules lawyer," are two completely separate things.

Heck, I know plenty of DM's who are rules lawyers by the definitions that have been proffered upthread.

Nifft
2017-07-16, 02:20 PM
Yeah, I think the lack of a solid definition for "rules lawyer" does create a lot of the confusion.

Someone posted a link to this article in another thread: http://lookrobot.co.uk/11-ways-better-roleplayer-safe-work-version/

Which includes the following quote:

"SIX. Know the system, don’t be a jerk about it.
If you know a system, you are easier to GM for, because you know your character’s limitations. You can calculate the rough odds of a particular action succeeding or failing, just like in real life. You can make prompt assessments of situations and act accordingly, because you understand the rules of the world.
(New players, of course, get a free pass on this one. But do make an effort to learn the rules, obviously, if you’re keen on sticking around in the hobby.)
But for the love of God, don’t rules-lawyer. Do not do that. It is not hard to work out, because here is a simple guide – if you are arguing over a rule for more than twenty seconds, you are a rules lawyer. You are the Health and Safety Inspector of roleplaying games, and you need to stop talking, because you are sucking the fun out of the game.
There are times when the rules are wrong, and that’s fine, but I’m hard-pressed to think of that time the guy remembered the rule and we all laughed and had a great time because he made the GM change it."

Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?

Here's how your definition looks to me:

• If someone punches you, and you fight back, then you're just as guilty of assault.

• There is no such thing as self-defense: participation is identical to aggression.

Can you see the similarities?



Rules-lawyering requires that you are trying to get away with something. Usually something deceptive, marginal, or otherwise under-handed.

Arguing about rules is not automatically rules-lawyering.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 02:35 PM
Here's how your definition looks to me:

• If someone punches you, and you fight back, then you're just as guilty of assault.

• There is no such thing as self-defense: participation is identical to aggression.

Can you see the similarities?



Rules-lawyering requires that you are trying to get away with something. Usually something deceptive, marginal, or otherwise under-handed.

Arguing about rules is not automatically rules-lawyering.

Do you mean my (Talakeal's) definition or the quoted definition?

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 02:36 PM
Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?

The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 02:50 PM
The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.

All I can say is that I wish I lived where you do.

Around here everyone wants to GM and the real trouble is finding players, and when a DM's chair does open up their is a vicious struggle for control as everyone vies for the coveted position of GM.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-16, 02:51 PM
Yeah, that's a common response, but in my mind "never question the GM," and "don't be a rules lawyer," are two completely separate things.

Heck, I know plenty of DM's who are rules lawyers by the definitions that have been proffered upthread.

The GM is the person who everybody at the table agreed should run the game, either by saying he should, or implicitly by joining a game where that person is the GM.

The GM is already responsible for ensuring the game is fair, or you can say feels satisfactory to play.

If the GM is going to be such an ass, you have already been suffering his assitude in many ways besides rules lawyering.

The GM, if he wants to, traditionally has the power to circumvent any rule he wishes.

So I don't see why you should be wary to give him this power that is rather small and unimportant compared to all of his other powers.

Keltest
2017-07-16, 02:54 PM
The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.

Indeed. The GM is the one person at the table who cannot simply be skipped over because they aren't paying attention. The put the most effort into playing the game (and make no mistake, they are playing too), and messing with them affects the whole group, by definition. Don't do it man.

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 02:59 PM
All I can say is that I wish I lived where you do.

Why? We have internet. There is absolutely no reason to let geography limit who we play with.

If you insist on playing with people who live where you do, be picky. Don't join games that have a GM you know will be a bad one. And if everyone else in the group thinks the GM is perfectly fine and you disagree, don't join that group either. (And if that happens with every single group you try to join, take a long and hard look at yourself and your behavior.)

As the vetruvian squid has already spelled out, if your GM is a power-tripping jerk face, rules lawyering is going to be the least of your problems.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 03:27 PM
The GM is the person who everybody at the table agreed should run the game, either by saying he should, or implicitly by joining a game where that person is the GM.

The GM is already responsible for ensuring the game is fair, or you can say feels satisfactory to play.

If the GM is going to be such an ass, you have already been suffering his assitude in many ways besides rules lawyering.

The GM, if he wants to, traditionally has the power to circumvent any rule he wishes.

So I don't see why you should be wary to give him this power that is rather small and unimportant compared to all of his other powers.

I just don't see games that way.

I see a group of friends agreeing to play a game together as equals.

My group generally plays "by the book" and decides on house rules by group vote rather than DM dictate, and that works just fine for us.

I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to suddenly do whatever they want and anyone who questions their bad behavior is automatically in the wrong any more than me inviting you over to my house to play Chess means that I can suddenly declare any move you make which puts me in check to be illegal.



Why? We have internet. There is absolutely no reason to let geography limit who we play with.

If you insist on playing with people who live where you do, be picky. Don't join games that have a GM you know will be a bad one. And if everyone else in the group thinks the GM is perfectly fine and you disagree, don't join that group either. (And if that happens with every single group you try to join, take a long and hard look at yourself and your behavior.)

As the vetruvian squid has already spelled out, if your GM is a power-tripping jerk face, rules lawyering is going to be the least of your problems.

No, I am saying I want to run an in person game but the ratio of DMs to players in my town massively in favor of the DMs so finding players is darn near impossible.

And no, it isn't every game. In my experience DMs run the gamut from terribly bad to exceptionally good, and I would say most are "pretty good", its just that I have had 1 or 2 super horrible terror nightmare DMs which happen to generate 90% of my internet dialogue as things going fine isn't exactly a great talking point.

But what I really don't understand is that is a DM is a "power-tripping jerk face" I am suddenly in the wrong for trying to talk some sense into them.

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 03:42 PM
I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to suddenly do whatever they want and anyone who questions their bad behavior is automatically in the wrong any more than me inviting you over to my house to play Chess means that I can suddenly declare any move you make which puts me in check to be illegal.

If you really can't see the different between a situation where a GM makes a ruling on a rules dispute in D&D, to a situation where a chess player deliberately ignores the rules of the game in order to stop you from winning a chess match, we have officially discovered the root of the problem.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-16, 03:54 PM
I have very little patience for that whole tired trope of the poor overworked GM slaving over a hot rulebook to make a campaign that his players will enjoy.

If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. You're not doing me a favour by GMing any more than I'm doing you a favour by playing.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 03:58 PM
If you really can't see the different between a situation where a GM makes a ruling on a rules dispute in D&D, to a situation where a chess player deliberately ignores the rules of the game in order to stop you from winning a chess match, we have officially discovered the root of the problem.

When you phrase it that way, no they are not the same thing.

But... well maybe they are.


Ok, so the aforementioned terrible nightmare DM also ran a Warhammer League out of his house which he would invite people over to play.

He had a list of "house rules" for his Warhammer League, one of which was "The Host (i.e. himself) settles all rules disputes".

Which seems fair enough.

But then when he was playing a match he would actually change the rules mid-game to help himself win. If you called him on it, he would say "So you are disputing the rules? Well then, I get to make a ruling, and my ruling is that the way I am currently playing is correct."

Now, clearly this is not reasonable, right?

However, when we played D&D he would do the EXACT same thing.

What I don't see is why when the same person invites me over to play a game and does the exact same thing, if it is a tabletop game he is the jerk, but if it is an RPG it is the people who question his behavior that are the jerks.




Generally I consider a rules lawyer to be someone who is a stickler for the technicalities of the rules to the point where he is correcting other people over inconsequential things at the expense of fun OR someone who is twisting the wording of the rules to gain some sort of ridiculous advantage in the game. In my mind these are behaviors that are not exclusive to a GMs or players.



I have very little patience for that whole tired trope of the poor overworked GM slaving over a hot rulebook to make a campaign that his players will enjoy.

If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. You're not doing me a favour by GMing any more than I'm doing you a favour by playing.

I certainly agree here.

Like I said, where I live the DMs practically have to beg the players to get a game going, if anything I am doing him a favor by agreeing to play in his game (and this cuts both ways, I would love to run a game and would be very grateful to have enough PCs to do it).



Edit: You know what, I would also go so far as to say that someone who continues to argue with the Game Master over a ruling is also a third type of rules lawyer, provided that the ruling was indeed called for and made in good faith; i.e. an actual rules ambiguity came up during the game rather than the DM simply changing the rules on a whim to deny the player performing an action that they don't approve of / didn't anticipate.

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 04:26 PM
When you phrase it that way, no they are not the same thing.

But... well maybe they are.

No, they're not. It has to do with the nature and objective of two very different kinds of games.



What I don't see is why when the same person invites me over to play a game and does the exact same thing, if it is a tabletop game he is the jerk, but if it is an RPG it is the people who question his behavior that are the jerks.

What I don't see is why you go to his house to play games in the first place?

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 06:23 PM
No, they're not. It has to do with the nature and objective of two very different kinds of games.



What I don't see is why you go to his house to play games in the first place?

I dont play with him anymore.



I guess I will never understand why people think that RPGs need an all powerful dictator to run smoothly, I have played plenty of games (both RPGs and other games) that ran just fine without such a figure, and in my experiance the more controlling the DM is the less fun the players have, and so that line of thinking just doesnt make sense to me, but then again I am fairly anti-authoritarian at heart and so maybe I just dont feel the same need to nave / be controlled that other people do.

Still, if people are using "rules lawyering" as shorthand for questioning the GM than that does indeed answer the qeustions I posed in my OP.

Mr Beer
2017-07-16, 08:02 PM
'Rules-lawyering' to me, is arguing about the rules to the extent that it breaks the flow of the game. I don't allow it when I GM because it ruins it for everyone. You get to state your case briefly, sometimes I think you're right and I change what happens to the way you want and sometimes I think you're wrong and nothing changes but I say we'll work it out post game. Then if I'm wrong post game, I won't do it the wrong way again. Either way, this process should be over within 30 seconds, nothing worse than the classic 'arguing about volumes of fireballs' or whatever and an hour later the orcs are still alive.

Of course this only works if you trust me to make reasonable decisions and you think I'm not a jerkface. Which is pretty much the only RPGs are going to work, mutual respect as opposed to antagonistic jerkfacery.

goto124
2017-07-16, 08:06 PM
Possible solution:

If a rules dispute occurs, let the players dispute for 20 seconds. Get out the egg timer and time them. If 20 seconds pass and it's not resolved, the GM makes a ruling, tells the players to hold it until after the game, and the game goes on.

Outside the game itself, the players and GM can hit the books and continue the discussion. Hopefully, a discussion and not a quarrel.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-16, 08:25 PM
Possible solution:

If a rules dispute occurs, let the players dispute for 20 seconds. Get out the egg timer and time them. If 20 seconds pass and it's not resolved, the GM makes a ruling, tells the players to hold it until after the game, and the game goes on.

Outside the game itself, the players and GM can hit the books and continue the discussion. Hopefully, a discussion and not a quarrel.

This is pretty much how I run things, a little longer than 20 seconds to make the case, but still a short time. Happy to have a more in depth discussion after the fact, and happy to retcon if said discussion results in an ultimate change. But there is no possible rules issue that I can come up with that's possibly important enough to take up everyone's time arguing about. If we're getting together for 3 hours, and we spend 10 minutes arguing over a rule, we've wasted 5% of our time. Nothing is that important.

There's a difference though with "don't be argumentative and breakup the game" and "the gm is always right, infallible and can do no wrong". The GM has obligations to the players to run a game that's fairly arbitrated with consistent rules (which is not the same as "rules as written in the book), and to keep the players informed of those rules that may be different. They also have an obligation to ensure that the rules they make changes to are for making the game better for all involved, not for favoring some players (including the GM) over others.

And ultimately, a GM can be unfair, and partial. They can make crappy rules and worse decisions. As a player, your options are to convince them of that fact, get other players to convince them of that fact, accept it for what it is, or leave, but whichever option you choose, stopping the game for everyone else to do that convincing is a jerk move as much as the GM being unfair in their rules is.

Incidentally, my definition of rules lawyer is a player (or GM) who insists on following the letter of the rules, to the detriment of common sense or the spirit of the rules (the peasant rail gun), or a player who demands an accounting in the rules of every thing that occurs that doesn't make sense to them (e.g. "goblins only have X AC, why am I not hitting at Y") and note that even there, there's a difference between going "wait, I thought goblins only had X AC" and halting the game after the GM confirms that this goblin does not appear to have that AC to argue over why a goblin doesn't and how the GM justifies it in the rule.

Keltest
2017-07-16, 08:30 PM
I have very little patience for that whole tired trope of the poor overworked GM slaving over a hot rulebook to make a campaign that his players will enjoy.

If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. You're not doing me a favour by GMing any more than I'm doing you a favour by playing.

I wish I had such an abundance of GMs who are available to run the ruleset I most enjoy and have the same periods of free time as me and several of my friends as you apparently do.

More to the point, even if its enjoyable, DMing is still a lot of work. I don't know anybody who GMs a game who, after a few sessions, wouldn't be more than happy to step back and let somebody else try it for a while if they offered to. Adding more work while simultaneously holding up the game for the rest of the players is extremely disrespectful.

On top of that, the GM exists in part specifically to be the deciding voice on rules disputes. Its part of the whole point of the job.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-16, 08:39 PM
I wish I had such an abundance of GMs who are available to run the ruleset I most enjoy and have the same periods of free time as me and several of my friends as you apparently do.

Everyone is investing free time in making a game work, not just the GM.

Thrudd
2017-07-16, 08:44 PM
Questioning a ruling because it differs from an actual rule in the book and hasn't been officially indicated as a house rule is not being a jerk, at all. Everyone needs to know the rules of the game they are playing, including how and where the DM plans to deviate from the rules. The DM should tell you up front that they plan on mostly ignoring the book in favor of their own impromptu rulings, so you know not to question them based on what it says in the book, or that certain specific rules or situations that are covered in the book will be handled differently.

Sometimes it's in how you question things that might make a difference. The words you choose and the tone of voice and mannerisms. "DM, you're wrong! The rules are like this, not that! what the f-?!" is probably not a good way to do it.
"I'm not trying to argue, but I thought this ability worked differently. In the book it says x-y and z. Are we doing it this way from now on?" - DM gives you an answer, and you say "ok, cool. just checking." - That type of exchange sounds completely reasonable to me and shouldn't cause anyone upset.

"Since I didn't know that it would work that way, can I take back my action and make a different choice, please?" and try to take it in stride if the answer is "no" instead of arguing and stopping play any further. On the other hand, "F- You DM! I never would have done that if I knew it worked that way! You are royally screwing me over right now!" is probably less likely to get a favorable response.

If you have a DM who makes it clear that no questioning of rulings whatsoever, for any reason, will be tolerated - well then you can make an informed choice about whether you want to play in that game and risk having things not working the way you expect them to at random times.

Keltest
2017-07-16, 08:45 PM
Everyone is investing free time in making a game work, not just the GM.

unless you play the game very differently than I do, the players sit down once every week or two for a few hours, and the GM does that, plus a couple hours of prep work to prepare the session, plus however much time they've invested in learning/creating the setting.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-16, 09:14 PM
Everyone is investing free time in making a game work, not just the GM.

Unless you're playing a GM-less game with pre-made scenarios (like Fiasco), the GM is normally putting in more work outside of just the 3 hours a week everyone is getting together to play for. Heck even when I run things completely by the seat of my pants as I often do for dungeon world, meaning I get to rely heavily on the players to help shape the world, I'm still probably spending an hour or so between games prepping something. A game like GURPS or D&D requires even more of that, especially if you're not using a pre-made adventure. That's why GM burnout is a thing, and why lots of regular groups have rotating GMs / games so that one person isn't being saddled with running everything every week. And I enjoy doing things as a GM, but in my experience there's a world of difference between the amount of work that's involved in being a GM and the work that's involved in being a player. I'm grateful for the players I have, and I'm grateful that they put up with my tangents into other systems from time to time, so I'm not dismissing that they are giving to me as I'm giving to them, but when I'm playing I'm under no illusions that I'm doing anywhere near the amount of work that my GM is doing.

Fri
2017-07-16, 09:21 PM
I dont play with him anymore.



I guess I will never understand why people think that RPGs need an all powerful dictator to run smoothly, I have played plenty of games (both RPGs and other games) that ran just fine without such a figure, and in my experiance the more controlling the DM is the less fun the players have, and so that line of thinking just doesnt make sense to me, but then again I am fairly anti-authoritarian at heart and so maybe I just dont feel the same need to nave / be controlled that other people do.

Still, if people are using "rules lawyering" as shorthand for questioning the GM than that does indeed answer the qeustions I posed in my OP.

As we all already know though, you live in bizarro world. Most of us never played with dictators, most of us played in a game ruled by democratically elected president with executive power.

VonMuller
2017-07-16, 09:44 PM
It always surprises me as a DM to see the sheer number of problems that can be solved by just not being a jerk and using common sense.

I have great players, when someone poses a rules question, it goes like this:

a) Does anyone honestly know the rule? Solved. (If you can't trust your friends to be honest, go to "c")

b) If not, does a wrong adjudication carry the risk of dire, long lasting consequences for the PCs that can't be overruled later?
If so, check the book. Solved.

If not, come up with what makes the most sense and then retcon it later if it's wrong.

c) If that doesn't work, chances are there is a jerk on a powertrip. Do you have a jerk at your table? Don't play with them. You are an adult. If you play with jerks, don't make huge theories as to what "rules lawyering" is until you get rid of the jerks.

The definition of rules lawyering is not the problem. It's the ninth hell spawn of an idiot you are playing with.

Then, after that dungfarmer is out of the table, we can talk game theory.

Sincerely. A lawyer.

TheYell
2017-07-16, 09:48 PM
Most of the games I'm in are run by a gentlemanly consensus.

A: I want to step 5 feet then run.
B: You can't.
A: I can step 5 feet as a free action, and then move action.
B: It's a free action that deprives you of your move action.
C D & E: Yeah that's right.
E: You can run from where you're at but that creates attack of opportunity.
A: Oh OK.

But we're mature enough players and somebody has SRD up on their tablet so we're rarely unable to check RAW ourselves.

We do bungle the real world issues, like the gunslinger threw cooking oil and the GM ruled the paladin's flaming sword wouldn't ignite it. Turns out its really quite flammable.

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 09:51 PM
It always surprises me as a DM to see the sheer number of problems that can be solved by just not being a jerk and using common sense.

Weird how it always keep coming back to people not being jerks to each other.

And I agree with you that jerk faces seem to be OP's real problem, not rules lawyering.

VonMuller
2017-07-16, 10:00 PM
Weird how it always keep coming back to people not being jerks to each other.

And I agree with you that jerk faces seem to be OP's real problem, not rules lawyering.

I mean, I love game theory, I would debate about it for hours. We could theorise as to when you should stop the flow of the game and when you shouldn't.

But this is the equivalent of debating when a referee should stop the play in a match of soccer -or use the law of advantage and keep the attacking team going- when one of the players is mauling the other team with a baseball bat.

Let's get rid of the jerk, and then we can argue the fine points of the game we love.

scalyfreak
2017-07-16, 10:05 PM
Are you saying a disruptive player should be ejected and then suspended for the next game? :smalltongue:

Keltest
2017-07-16, 10:13 PM
Are you saying a disruptive player should be ejected and then suspended for the next game? :smalltongue:

Depends on what were suspending them by, but I find this to be an acceptable solution to most problem players.

Guizonde
2017-07-16, 10:18 PM
As we all already know though, you live in bizarro world. Most of us never played with dictators, most of us played in a game ruled by democratically elected president with executive power.

sez you. i've played with good dm's and psycho-evil-bad dm's. thankfully, more good than bad, but there's 4 dm's whom i've played with that suck the fun out of a room and even turned people off pen and paper they're so psychotically clinging to the power-trip. for obvious reasons, they spend their time between complaining there are never enough players for them to play with, players who don't know the rules like they do, or complain about being alone in liking pen and paper. you sleep in the bed you make, i say. said dm's are even worse players (believe me, i've dm'd for 2 of them, and had a third as a "teammate" for 6 months. the team-killing urge was bad, let me tell you).

like i said, we check the rules after a session, and unless the group can't agree and the dm makes a call, we settle on a way democratically in less than a minute. playing dnd, the players have the obligation of knowing what their powers do (spells, class abilities, all the bookkeeping). my current pf group is so laissez-faire and trusting however, that i've repeatedly asked them to check my sheet for errors and all they say is "we trust you, you're good". well, i don't trust myself to not make basic errors! at least, that's a minor quibble and it's kind of flattering in a way. i play much longer sessions than most on the board, at 7-8 hours once a week, and debating rules for even 5 minutes is still a sterile chore. it's different for my homebrew game, but even so, we tend to wait until after the session to smooth the game out. automatic weapon rules took weeks to balance, and they're still too powerful in my mind, but never do i think of going "hey guys, let's argue about this for 30 minutes straight!" as a way of having fun during game night.

rules lawyering is defined to me as "rules abuse for your own gain". it's like insisting using prestigitation as a 9th level spell because "there ain't no rule saying you can't do that" (despite erratas). it's loophole abuse that borders on munchkinry it's so bad. it's not cheating per se, but it might as well be. if a player or dm starts off with "it makes no sense. it should be xyz", there's a high chance that their argument will be to force an advantage. writing this, i think less of "katanas are underpowered in d20", and more of a lot of powergaming builds i've seen where it says "clear it with your dm". if the player complains their dm banned this rules-abusing build, the dm isn't the problem, the player is.

in general i draw the line at "is this going to be fun for everyone or is this gonna generate conflict?" i've proposed alternate rules during dinner-breaks or in between sessions, sometimes homebrewed, sometimes unearthed arcana, just to see if everyone would like to try something different. i've never done it in-game because it'd be playing chess with a pigeon (in which case i'd be the pigeon). in-game, you're focused on the game, the practical playing of it, not the hypotheticals that could be better. and before you ask, quite a few times have my ideas been adopted, since they're ways to smooth out the game (shout out to jal and coventry for providing an alternate way of dealing with simultaneous initiative, by the way). asking for more power is sterile in my view. if you unbalance the group, you'll just be that guy carrying the game, and players will get bored. a bored player is a sign the game is going badly. either they leave (which is kinda sad), or the game becomes bad (which is sad too). hell, i was actually being that guy in dealing with intrigue for the first 2 games of pf. it was due to inexperienced players and a combat-heavy player load-out, but i was glad when the oracle and the bard finally showed up, now all 6 of us really share the spotlight.

... von muller kinda said it better than i did. if they are indeed a lawyer, they sound more like a business consultant compared to the lawyers i hung out with, but i share the sentiment. speaking of whom,


The definition of rules lawyering is not the problem. It's the ninth hell spawn of an idiot you are playing with.

mind if i print this on a t-shirt and threaten bad players with "the t-shirt of shame" if they act like douchecanoes? it's not a sig but it's flattering as well.

edit:


Are you saying a disruptive player should be ejected and then suspended for the next game? :smalltongue:

some players i know should be ejected out of a window and their broken body should be suspended over the next game, but i may be a bit lenient on this ruling.... i'll find a way to add rock salt, lemon juice and concentrated spite in the mix later.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-16, 10:32 PM
unless you play the game very differently than I do, the players sit down once every week or two for a few hours, and the GM does that, plus a couple hours of prep work to prepare the session, plus however much time they've invested in learning/creating the setting.

The GM does typically invest a little to a lot more time, system depending. That doesn't make them a selfless martyr sacrificing themselves on the altar of player fun. If you don't enjoy doing as much prep work is required to support the system/style you're GMing then you shouldn't GM. This isn't a condemnation of people who don't enjoy that sort of thing, just a statement of fact that should be obvious.

If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. Unless someone is literally paying you for it, I guess.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-17, 11:20 AM
I guess I will never understand why people think that RPGs need an all powerful dictator to run smoothly, I have played plenty of games (both RPGs and other games) that ran just fine without such a figure, and in my experiance the more controlling the DM is the less fun the players have, and so that line of thinking just doesnt make sense to me, but then again I am fairly anti-authoritarian at heart and so maybe I just dont feel the same need to nave / be controlled that other people do.
"All powerful dictator" is certainly a bit strong, but there the very nature of the thing means that you'll constantly run into situations where the rules start to fail-- a player will try to use an ability in an unconventional way, or two different rules will collide headlong without clear text as to which takes priority, or someone will do something where rules simply weren't written. At which point you need an arbiter to step in an clear things up, and the game generally flows better when one person can make the call, instead of a debate ensuing.

Amphetryon
2017-07-17, 12:23 PM
I can't think of a single thread where "RPGs need an all-powerful dictator to run smoothly" was actually given as serious advice. Could someone please provide a link? If not, this reads as inflated language bias.

For clarity's sake, I'm stipulating that "the GM has the final word in rules disputes" is not synonymous with "all-powerful dictator."

Trampaige
2017-07-17, 12:32 PM
I guess I've become mini rules lawyer because I got tired of watching people not understanding how their spells work/probably intentionally flubbing how their spells work (hoping that other people don't notice.)

It becomes a real drag if some people are playing by the rules and other people aren't.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-17, 12:42 PM
I think it is safe to make the GM an all-powerful dictator because you should not, in the first place, be gaming with people you would not trust to be all-powerful dictators in your game. Since it would not make sense for there to be six (or however many people are in your group) all-powerful dictators at once, the GM is the one of six viable candidates who gets appointed.

Talakeal
2017-07-17, 01:00 PM
"All powerful dictator" is certainly a bit strong, but there the very nature of the thing means that you'll constantly run into situations where the rules start to fail-- a player will try to use an ability in an unconventional way, or two different rules will collide headlong without clear text as to which takes priority, or someone will do something where rules simply weren't written. At which point you need an arbiter to step in an clear things up, and the game generally flows better when one person can make the call, instead of a debate ensuing.

Out of curiosity, would you be in favor of other types of games having such a player?

I know it is a bit of a conflict of interest and therefore not practical, but I have seen far more serious rules arguments come about in games like Monopoly or Warhammer than I ever have in RPGs. Heck, I remember one time in Scrabble when I got into a vicious argument with my mother over whether or not I was allowed to skip my turn in order to save the letters I needed for a really high point word. (I was one letter away from getting a triple word score Quixotic, and I wanted to wait for that rather than squandering my Is on "it" or "is".



I think it is safe to make the GM an all-powerful dictator because you should not, in the first place, be gaming with people you would not trust to be all-powerful dictators in your game. Since it would not make sense for there to be six (or however many people are in your group) all-powerful dictators at once, the GM is the one of six viable candidates who gets appointed.

See, I don't trust anyone with absolute power, even myself, because people are fallible human beings.

As someone who has been the DM 9/10 times I understand all the work they put into the game and generally I respect their authority even if I disagree with it. Even my former Crazy Mcterribad DM, who couldn't go 15 minutes without finding (or inventing) a reason to correct someone a chew them was endured in polite silence from me 99% of the time.

I prefer to handle things diplomatically when it really matters, but for the little stuff I am fine just letting the DM do what they think is best and keep the game running. I only find it fun to be completely dominated when doing a very different sort of role-play. :sabine:


I can't think of a single thread where "RPGs need an all-powerful dictator to run smoothly" was actually given as serious advice. Could someone please provide a link? If not, this reads as inflated language bias.

For clarity's sake, I'm stipulating that "the GM has the final word in rules disputes" is not synonymous with "all-powerful dictator."

I have met a few people like that in person, but then again I live in Bizarro land. Online I have seen a few, the only one that comes to mind is the late to this forum Jedi Potter, but they are a minority.

Still, the idea that even questioning a GM's call makes you a problem player is pretty out there.

Keltest
2017-07-17, 01:07 PM
Out of curiosity, would you be in favor of other types of games having such a player?

I know it is a bit of a conflict of interest and therefore not practical, but I have seen far more serious rules arguments come about in games like Monopoly or Warhammer than I ever have in RPGs. Heck, I remember one time in Scrabble when I got into a vicious argument with my mother over whether or not I was allowed to skip my turn in order to save the letters I needed for a really high point word. (I was one letter away from getting a triple word score Quixotic, and I wanted to wait for that rather than squandering my Is on "it" or "is".

Well, the monopoly rules are deliberately designed to be painful to play, so everybody has their own preferred houserules to make it less painful.

Amphetryon
2017-07-17, 01:47 PM
I have met a few people like that in person, but then again I live in Bizarro land. Online I have seen a few, the only one that comes to mind is the late to this forum Jedi Potter, but they are a minority.
Still, the idea that even questioning a GM's call makes you a problem player is pretty out there.
1. Those you have met in person are not threads to link, except your own. This is particularly true as there has been some question about the impartiality of the reporting of events in those threads, including from others who were present at those games.
2. Citing a single (banned) poster whose positions were regularly hotly disputed in these parts is a curious choice in support of your own point, IMO. Were you using JP's opinion on the role of the GM because you agree with his (admittedly minority) position, or was it just a straw-man used to make your point seem stronger, or....?

Talakeal
2017-07-17, 01:56 PM
1. Those you have met in person are not threads to link, except your own. This is particularly true as there has been some question about the impartiality of the reporting of events in those threads, including from others who were present at those games.
2. Citing a single (banned) poster whose positions were regularly hotly disputed in these parts is a curious choice in support of your own point, IMO. Were you using JP's opinion on the role of the GM because you agree with his (admittedly minority) position, or was it just a straw-man used to make your point seem stronger, or....?

Wait, what? The only other poster who I have ever gamed with in person is Fenrisnorth, and he tells me that, if anything, I am underselling the jack-assery of several of the people I have played with.

And Jedipotter is just the first name to come to mind, I can think of a few others who share similar sentiments. Like I said, it is the minority opinion, but there do exist a non-negligible number of power-tripping DMs and apologist players.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-17, 02:37 PM
See, I don't trust anyone with absolute power, even myself, because people are fallible human beings.

As someone who has been the DM 9/10 times I understand all the work they put into the game and generally I respect their authority even if I disagree with it. Even my former Crazy Mcterribad DM, who couldn't go 15 minutes without finding (or inventing) a reason to correct someone a chew them was endured in polite silence from me 99% of the time.

I prefer to handle things diplomatically when it really matters, but for the little stuff I am fine just letting the DM do what they think is best and keep the game running. I only find it fun to be completely dominated when doing a very different sort of role-play. :sabine:

Just so we're clear, we're talking about absolute power in running a tabletop RPG. Not, like, a government.

TheYell
2017-07-17, 03:27 PM
Just so we're clear, we're talking about absolute power in running a tabletop RPG. Not, like, a government.

Yeah this is an international forum, so better spell that out.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-17, 03:37 PM
Out of curiosity, would you be in favor of other types of games having such a player?

I know it is a bit of a conflict of interest and therefore not practical, but I have seen far more serious rules arguments come about in games like Monopoly or Warhammer than I ever have in RPGs. Heck, I remember one time in Scrabble when I got into a vicious argument with my mother over whether or not I was allowed to skip my turn in order to save the letters I needed for a really high point word. (I was one letter away from getting a triple word score Quixotic, and I wanted to wait for that rather than squandering my Is on "it" or "is".
If it were practical? Sure. "Hey [third party], settle an argument for us real quick" is probably more fair and productive than the two people with their victory at stake arguing. RPGs get away with it, in a sense, because they're not competitive things.


2. Citing a single (banned) poster whose positions were regularly hotly disputed in these parts is a curious choice in support of your own point, IMO. Were you using JP's opinion on the role of the GM because you agree with his (admittedly minority) position, or was it just a straw-man used to make your point seem stronger, or....?
I think it was an example of people suggesting a dictatorial DM.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-17, 04:14 PM
Yeah this is an international forum, so better spell that out.

Wow, you really don't understand why I mentioned that?

Talakeal
2017-07-17, 06:46 PM
Wow, you really don't understand why I mentioned that?

Oh, yes, I meant purely in terms of gaming groups, wasn't trying to start a political debate.

Lo'Tek
2017-07-17, 06:54 PM
Mr. In (character): I step 5 feet away from the orc with the gun, hope that he does not shoot me in the back and then run the hell away..
Rule-Police: Oh no you don't!
Prosecutor: You can not step 5 feet as a free action, and then move action, because the free movement action deprives you of your move action on the basis that it was intended to allow a bit of moving only with another non movement action, as it stands written in SPH on page 116 of the holy tablet.
Lynchmob: Yeah! Shoot him!
Judge: *hammers and shouts* Silence!
The jury of gentlemen has decided in consensus:
As it stands written in RAW
if you run from where you are
he gets an attack of opportunity,
even if you start to run slowly.
Convicted: Oh OK.


Lesson CXII: Describe what you did / talk about, as if you were playing a roleplaying game. Which role(s) did you take yourself? Which characteristics shown by the people you played with did you like / not like? Compare your notes. Do you agree with each other? Try to understand the reasoning behind their interpretation. Do you feel hurt by the way others describe you? Why?

TheYell
2017-07-17, 07:27 PM
Wow, you really don't understand why I mentioned that?

Hey you never know who RPs and hangs out in this forum. I once chatted with a British MP on a game message board.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-17, 08:01 PM
Oh, yes, I meant purely in terms of gaming groups, wasn't trying to start a political debate.

I think you're not quite getting the point.

It is not that big of a deal to have an all-powerful dictator of your tabletop RPG.

Lo'Tek
2017-07-17, 08:29 PM
PC: I want to step 5 feet then run.
DM: When you move away you hear the sound of a gunshoot
*dice rolling*
DM: the bullet hits you in the back for 6.


It is not that big of a deal to have an all-powerful dictator of your tabletop RPG.
Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος

AMFV
2017-07-17, 08:31 PM
Oh, yes, I meant purely in terms of gaming groups, wasn't trying to start a political debate.

I think the implication was that giving somebody power over your D&D rules disputes is not equivalent to giving somebody "absolute power". I mean think of it in these terms: If you're playing baseball with your friends and you have one of them act as the Umpire, you should respect their calls or at least defer to them in ways that you might not defer to other friends.

That's the attitude that you see in games where the DM is largely acting as a referee which is more common in older gaming systems.

Jay R
2017-07-17, 09:39 PM
I just don't see games that way.

I see a group of friends agreeing to play a game together as equals.

That's not what my rulebook says. Can you cite the passage in the game in which it states that the DM has no special ruling authority?

My group generally plays "by the book" and decides on house rules by group vote rather than DM dictate, and that works just fine for us.[/QUOTE]

You're contradicting yourself. The rules in every edition of D&D I've ever read make it very clear that the DM has the final say. Playing "by the book" [I]includes the DM having the final say, and being the referee, not an equal.

You can certainly invent a way to play that's not consistent with the books. Millions of players have various forms of house rules. And if they routinely have great games with minimal friction, then that justifies the house rules (for that group).

It does not justify claiming you are playing "by the book" when you eliminate the rules DM authority in the books and substitute a group vote.


I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to suddenly do whatever they want and anyone who questions their bad behavior is automatically in the wrong any more than me inviting you over to my house to play Chess means that I can suddenly declare any move you make which puts me in check to be illegal.

Because that's the rules of the game. It has nothing to do with whose house it is, and everything to do with who is in the official position that, by the rules of every version of D&D I've ever played, makes the final call.

Why is that a good rule? Well, that's an opinion, on which reasonable people can disagree. Here is my explanation for why I approve of the DM authority in the D&D rules:

In a game of baseball, when a pitch is caught by the catcher, there must be a ruling about whether it was a strike or a ball. We cannot continue to play the game until that is settled. Otherwise we could argue forever, but we can't throw the next pitch.

There is an official whose job it is to make that call, so the game can continue. That official is often wrong. But we need a final ruling that we will all accept to be able to play.

A trained professional umpire has been taught that he has to make a ruling, even when he doesn't know the true answer, and is guessing. Sometimes they'll stop and consult the rulebook. He'll do everything he reasonably can to get the ruling right, short of delaying the game. And every competent baseball player knows that the umpire is often wrong. But the umpire still has the final word, and we have to accept that, so we can continue the game.

Similarly, in D&D, whenever an action is taken, we need to determine what effect it had before the next action can be played out. Otherwise we could argue forever, but we can't move on to the next action.

There is an official whose job it is to make that call, so the game can continue. That official is often wrong. But we need a final ruling that we all can accept to be able to play.

An experienced DM has learned that she has to make a ruling, even when she doesn't know the true answer, and is guessing. Sometimes she'll stop and consult the rulebook briefly. She'll do everything she reasonably can to get the ruling right, short of delaying the game. And every competent D&D player knows that the DM is often wrong. But the DM still has the final word, and we have to accept that, so we can continue the game.

In both cases, sometimes we have to accept a ruling even when we still believe is wrong. But the game can't continue until we do. The person who keeps arguing after the umpire / DM makes the final call is the rules lawyer.

[Yes, there are sandlot baseball games with no umpire. And I've seen those games end in the middle because people simply couldn't agree on what the effect of the last action was. With an umpire, even if you don't agree with the umpire's call, the game can go on.

Similarly, there could be D&D games decided by player vote. I won't characterize them, because I've never played in pone. I know that with DM authority, and players who accept that authority, the game continues.]

Talakeal
2017-07-17, 10:01 PM
That's not what my rulebook says. Can you cite the passage in the game in which it states that the DM has no special ruling authority?


Yes, D&D does give the DM authority to do whatever they want. There are many RPGs that do not follow that procedure, and imo, they are much better for it.

And whatever "authority" the rules of the game give a person, they are still your equal as a person, and imo should be treated as a friend and a fellow player rather than an "authority figure".

My personal favorite (published) RPG is Revised Mage the Ascension, which does not give any special power to the Storyteller, although it does say that you are free to implement house rules, and some DMs have interpreted that to mean that they alone hold that power

Also, don't you think that:

"You're contradicting yourself. The rules in every edition of D&D I've ever read make it very clear that the DM has the final say. Playing "by the book" includes the DM having the final say, and being the referee, not an equal.

You can certainly invent a way to play that's not consistent with the books. Millions of players have various forms of house rules. And if they routinely have great games with minimal friction, then that justifies the house rules (for that group)."

Is a bit of a semantic argument?

But Ok, if you prefer I will restate my position as "My group does not play with the rule that allow the DM to alter the rules on a whim. We generally stick to the printed rules, but when we come across ambiguous rules or rules that make the game less fun for the group we democratically come up with house rules to replace them."

RazorChain
2017-07-17, 10:44 PM
Yes, D&D does give the DM authority to do whatever they want. There are many RPGs that do not follow that procedure, and imo, they are much better for it.

And whatever "authority" the rules of the game give a person, they are still your equal as a person, and imo should be treated as a friend and a fellow player rather than an "authority figure".

My personal favorite (published) RPG is Revised Mage the Ascension, which does not give any special power to the Storyteller, although it does say that you are free to implement house rules, and some DMs have interpreted that to mean that they alone hold that power


Nothing can give a GM authority to do what he/she wants. The GM only controls the game and is not as a person any better or worse for it, GM is a position that has to filled. But the GM has a job and one of those jobs is to act as an arbiter when rules come up, else the game will devolve into rules discussion or arguments. Player#1 thinks his character can do this but Player#2 thinks the rules dictate otherwise. What are we going to do? Make the players interpret the rules? Find a third party whose exclusive job is rules interpretation?

A GM making a ruling doesn't make him all wiser or any better than the players, it's just that the GM has been handed that job because he's supposed to be impartial. The players can never be impartial, do you as a player want to make a ruling where another PC's life is on the line? Can you be impartial in that situation?

The GM already controls everything about the gaming world, he really doesn't need to bend any rules to make the PC's life difficult or kill them or do numerous nasty stuff to them. When you as a player have trusted him with that power then interpreting the rules is miniscule in comparison. Now just think of an experienced GM running a game for total newbies. The newbies don't have the slightest clue what the rules are and have to trust implicitly in the GM.

If you trust your GM, then you can trust that he will try to make a fair ruling and follow the rules when they exist. He may make mistakes but he's trying to fair or/and impartial.

The problem arises when a GM isn't worthy of that trust. If you can't trust your GM to make a fair ruling how can you then trust him to run a game for you?

VonMuller
2017-07-17, 10:57 PM
I simply don't get what is the point of debating if roleplaying should be an horizontal (Players = DM) or vertical (DM > Players) experience if both of you are having fun.

What does it -for Thor's sake- matter if the rulebook says that the DM has final say.

That guy and his group put The Golden Rule above the role of DM and they have fun. And that rule is also on most of the handbooks.

That other guy and his group like a more vertical experience. All that matters is fun. If all at the table are having the experience that best compromises their different roleplaying desires and they are having fun, they are roleplaying well. If not. They are either messing around (which is not bad) or incompatible (which can only be solved by another group)

Let's embrace ambiguity, greyness, and non-definition. Then, after that, let us debate if a tactical rpg like D&D favours a vertical GM and a politics-intensive system like V:tM or Houses of the Blooded favours an horizontal experience. But let's start from this: "Good luck, have fun, don't you fricking touch my dice"

War_lord
2017-07-18, 07:46 AM
If you can't trust your DM to be fair, why are you you letting that person DM? Seems like another case of trying to treat an out of game problem, which is that a minority of people use the DM position as a way to assert powers over others, with an in game solution, neutering the adjudicator portion of the DMing hat to allow constant bickering at the table in the hopes that that'll somehow "improve" the DM's behavioral issues.

Jay R
2017-07-18, 12:16 PM
Yes, D&D does give the DM authority to do whatever they want. There are many RPGs that do not follow that procedure, and imo, they are much better for it.

Thank you. That clears up the confusion caused by the false statement "I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to ..." when in fact you DO see why they get to.


And whatever "authority" the rules of the game give a person, they are still your equal as a person, and imo should be treated as a friend and a fellow player rather than an "authority figure".

Well, yes, of course. I can't imagine anyone doubting that. And treating them as an equal and a friend includes respecting their ruling when they make one, even if you think it's mistaken, so the game can continue. When my friend is the marshal on an SCA fencing field, I respect his authority. When my friends are a police officers, teachers, or employees where I'm shopping, I respect their authority. And similarly, when my friends are DMs, I respect their authority.

Marshals, police officers, teachers, store employees and DMs are my equals, but they still sometimes have authority over the situation I'm in. Being my friend and equal doesn't erase that.


My personal favorite (published) RPG is Revised Mage the Ascension, which does not give any special power to the Storyteller, although it does say that you are free to implement house rules, and some DMs have interpreted that to mean that they alone hold that power

That's interesting, but it's a complete change of subject from your statement, "I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to ...." The term "DM" makes this statement specifically about D&D, so I have just as specifically.


Also, don't you think that:
<snip>
Is a bit of a semantic argument?

Yes, of course it's a semantic argument. That's why it was crucial. You were making the unstated assumption that playing "by the book" included ignoring what the book says about DMs. Since this is not what "by the book" means, I had to make an argument about meaning.


But Ok, if you prefer I will restate my position as "My group does not play with the rule that allow the DM to alter the rules on a whim. We generally stick to the printed rules, but when we come across ambiguous rules or rules that make the game less fun for the group we democratically come up with house rules to replace them."

No, I prefer it that you backed off of the untrue position of "I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to ...", and switched positions to "Yes, D&D does give the DM authority to do whatever they want. There are many RPGs that do not follow that procedure, and imo, they are much better for it."

Talakeal
2017-07-18, 01:06 PM
Stuff

I suppose I just fall victim to the Play grounder's fallacy, at times using D&D and RPG or DM and GM interchangeably and assume other people do the same. The blog which someone (I believe you if I remember correctly) linked in another thread that first got me thinking about this subject is talking about GMs and Tabletop RPGS rather than D&D specifically.



If you can't trust your DM to be fair, why are you you letting that person DM? Seems like another case of trying to treat an out of game problem, which is that a minority of people use the DM position as a way to assert powers over others, with an in game solution, neutering the adjudicator portion of the DMing hat to allow constant bickering at the table in the hopes that that'll somehow "improve" the DM's behavioral issues.

Once I realized that people where talking about players arguing with the DM rather than rules disputes between any two (or more) parties any of whom might incidentally happen to be the DM I realized that the initial question I asked was flawed and that this was going to turn into the same old player empowerment vs. GM authority argument that has been done to death.



To explain where I am coming from:

I first learned to play RPGs in middle school when my science teacher ran an afterschool game (although I had owned the books and been trying to make sense of them since I was 7). He ran the game like a teacher, and he would hand out punishments for disruptive behavior of any sort, which makes sense when you have someone who is used to running a classroom playing with a bunch of kids.

When I got into high school and started running my own games I followed a similar style to what I had been taught, and would run the game in a fairly authoritarian manner.

One night shortly after I had started college we had a very long session and the players kept arguing with me over rules calls, and I kept telling them to stuff it. Eventually when they persisted I told them that they would not be getting any XP for the night. One player stated "I am only here for the XP, so I am going to bed," and got up and left the table. So now, the game was extremely disrupted and everyone was pissed off, and we were down a player, and if I pressed the issue I knew the group would permanently be down a player.

That led to a lot of introspection, and I realized that trying to assert my authority had never actually helped the game in any way. It didn't silence complaints or resolve issues, it just sometimes caused them to change form. And it certainly didn't make the game go more smoothly.

So I made a conscious effort to be a more lax DM and treat the players as equals, handling rules disputes democratically and with consistent house rules. And I found that my games where better for it.

Then in 2013 I moved out of state and haven't been able to run a regular game since. I did find several games to play in though. Most only lasted a session or two, but I found two long running games, one of them with the best GM I have ever played under and the other the worst.

Several of the DMs I ran with during this time (including the aforementioned worst) were extremely power hungry. They openly said they loved the feeling of control that being the DM gives them, they would not allow players to even question their decisions at the table (I don't mean argue, I simply mean asking how or why something worked), and they took the line from the DMG saying they could do whatever they want literally and out of context, ignoring all of the rest of the advice in the DMG about how to assert authority and believing that it was inherent to the position of Game Master regardless of what the specific game we were saying said.

These games were miserable for everyone involved, including the Game Master, as players were constantly trying to stand up to him, leaving the game, or just not having fun.

At the same time, I have started reading lots more gaming forums and blogs during my free time as it is far cheaper and less space intensive than actually buying RPG supplements and reading them as I did when I was younger, and I am simply astonished by how many people seem to enjoy a dictatorial gaming style and recommend it, and label people who don't appreciate as problem players or bad gamers. And I just don't understand it, as in twenty five years of gaming on both sides of the screen I have almost always found that the more lax the DM is the more fun the players have, and the better the game goes for everyone involved.

But, like I said, that is just how I feel about it, and the position has already been argued to death on these forums.

Keltest
2017-07-18, 01:26 PM
I suppose I just fall victim to the Play grounder's fallacy, at times using D&D and RPG or DM and GM interchangeably and assume other people do the same. The blog which someone (I believe you if I remember correctly) linked in another thread that first got me thinking about this subject is talking about GMs and Tabletop RPGS rather than D&D specifically.




Once I realized that people where talking about players arguing with the DM rather than rules disputes between any two (or more) parties any of whom might incidentally happen to be the DM I realized that the initial question I asked was flawed and that this was going to turn into the same old player empowerment vs. GM authority argument that has been done to death.



To explain where I am coming from:

I first learned to play RPGs in middle school when my science teacher ran an afterschool game (although I had owned the books and been trying to make sense of them since I was 7). He ran the game like a teacher, and he would hand out punishments for disruptive behavior of any sort, which makes sense when you have someone who is used to running a classroom playing with a bunch of kids.

When I got into high school and started running my own games I followed a similar style to what I had been taught, and would run the game in a fairly authoritarian manner.

One night shortly after I had started college we had a very long session and the players kept arguing with me over rules calls, and I kept telling them to stuff it. Eventually when they persisted I told them that they would not be getting any XP for the night. One player stated "I am only here for the XP, so I am going to bed," and got up and left the table. So now, the game was extremely disrupted and everyone was pissed off, and we were down a player, and if I pressed the issue I knew the group would permanently be down a player.

That led to a lot of introspection, and I realized that trying to assert my authority had never actually helped the game in any way. It didn't silence complaints or resolve issues, it just sometimes caused them to change form. And it certainly didn't make the game go more smoothly.

So I made a conscious effort to be a more lax DM and treat the players as equals, handling rules disputes democratically and with consistent house rules. And I found that my games where better for it.

Then in 2013 I moved out of state and haven't been able to run a regular game since. I did find several games to play in though. Most only lasted a session or two, but I found two long running games, one of them with the best GM I have ever played under and the other the worst.

Several of the DMs I ran with during this time (including the aforementioned worst) were extremely power hungry. They openly said they loved the feeling of control that being the DM gives them, they would not allow players to even question their decisions at the table (I don't mean argue, I simply mean asking how or why something worked), and they took the line from the DMG saying they could do whatever they want literally and out of context, ignoring all of the rest of the advice in the DMG about how to assert authority and believing that it was inherent to the position of Game Master regardless of what the specific game we were saying said.

These games were miserable for everyone involved, including the Game Master, as players were constantly trying to stand up to him, leaving the game, or just not having fun.

At the same time, I have started reading lots more gaming forums and blogs during my free time as it is far cheaper and less space intensive than actually buying RPG supplements and reading them as I did when I was younger, and I am simply astonished by how many people seem to enjoy a dictatorial gaming style and recommend it, and label people who don't appreciate as problem players or bad gamers. And I just don't understand it, as in twenty five years of gaming on both sides of the screen I have almost always found that the more lax the DM is the more fun the players have, and the better the game goes for everyone involved.

But, like I said, that is just how I feel about it, and the position has already been argued to death on these forums.

Theres a difference between asserting your authority and being a jerk. You don't need to be the GM to make everybody else miserable or be rude to people.

War_lord
2017-07-18, 01:27 PM
Okay, so your only examples are DM's who apparently openly gloated about treating their players like crap, and who you admit took the book entirely out of context. And blogs you've read, which probably don't capture the full complexity of the dynamic at the blogger's table. I think your perspective on the matter has been warped by your personal experiences, and your inability to consider this doesn't really look good.

Talakeal
2017-07-18, 01:37 PM
Okay, so your only examples are DM's who apparently openly gloated about treating their players like crap, and who you admit took the book entirely out of context. And blogs you've read, which probably don't capture the full complexity of the dynamic at the blogger's table. I think your perspective on the matter has been warped by your personal experiences, and your inability to consider this doesn't really look good.

Really?

I don't think the teacher in my first example was a jerk, just strict. He never openly gloated about his power. The game was still fun for the most part.

And I said, most of my experience comes from being behind the screen, I know that the more uptight I am the less fun everyone, including myself, has. Likewise I have played with numerous DMs which follow a pretty reasonable curve from "terrible" to "great" with most falling in the middle, and I have observed that there is a fairly strong (but by no means absolute) correlation between terrible GMs and authoritarian GMs.

I came to this conclusion long before I even met any of the real jerks, so I am not sure how this has warped my perspective; rather I am simply shocked at how many people I have encountered recently, both in person and online, who equate being a good GM with being heavy handed and authoritarian.


I feel kind of bad that I spent so much time trying to write an honest post about my experiences and I seem to have so utterly failed to convey my point.

RazorChain
2017-07-18, 01:40 PM
I think many GM's start out authoritarian, I did at least but I mellowed with age and wisdom. Then again I started to run games for my friends as a 10 year old and would take a fit and scream "Respect my authority!!" or something along the line when all their PC's did was to punch people in the face for the laugh of it and kill the town watch.


My old group consist of guys in the age range between 40-45, some of us have been playing together for 25+ years. There are no rule disputes, never ever. The GM will usually ask if somebody recalls the rule and if we don't then he makes a ruling and we continue. All of us except one are married with kids and we don't want to use our precious gaming time on digging up rules or arguing over rules. Usually somebody digs up the rule after the game and will mention it on google hangouts....where we hangout for our gaming chat.

We are all equals in the group, nobody sits on a high horse because they are GMing, who is GMing is usually democratically voted by the group after pitching idea or sometimes the GM is the only one at the time who volunteers.

In my new group the dynamic is different. I'm older than them and I've been gaming since before most of them have been born, so I'll put it like this, they respect my experience. Also there are no disputes because I'm using a rule system that I know and have been using for over 20 years and most of them are newbies (IMHO)

This is how most groups go, there are rarely arguments about rules. In most cases it's someone who misunderstands or misinterprets a rule and usually they will be corrected by the rest of the group. I'm lucky in the way that I play with people who are enthusiastic about gaming and have good grasp of the rules, those who aren't enthusiastic about rules are at least enthusiastic about the game :)

Talakeal
2017-07-18, 01:44 PM
I think many GM's start out authoritarian, I did at least but I mellowed with age and wisdom. Then again I started to run games for my friends as a 10 year old and would take a fit and scream "Respect my authority!!" or something along the line when all their PC's did was to punch people in the face for the laugh of it and kill the town watch.


My old group consist of guys in the age range between 40-45, some of us have been playing together for 25+ years. There are no rule disputes, never ever. The GM will usually ask if somebody recalls the rule and if we don't then he makes a ruling and we continue. All of us except one are married with kids and we don't want to use our precious gaming time on digging up rules or arguing over rules. Usually somebody digs up the rule after the game and will mention it on google hangouts....where we hangout for our gaming chat.

We are all equals in the group, nobody sits on a high horse because they are GMing, who is GMing is usually democratically voted by the group after pitching idea or sometimes the GM is the only one at the time who volunteers.

In my new group the dynamic is different. I'm older than them and I've been gaming since before most of them have been born, so I'll put it like this, they respect my experience. Also there are no disputes because I'm using a rule system that I know and have been using for over 20 years and most of them are newbies (IMHO)

This is how most groups go, there are rarely arguments about rules. In most cases it's someone who misunderstands or misinterprets a rule and usually they will be corrected by the rest of the group. I'm lucky in the way that I play with people who are enthusiastic about gaming and have good grasp of the rules, those who aren't enthusiastic about rules are at least enthusiastic about the game :)

That has been more or less my experience as well.




You know, now that I think about it, I think there is often a feedback loop between being a good DM, being respected, and being chill.

A good DM makes good rulings, players learn to respect their decisions, and thus players rarely challenge them, and thus they can be friendly and relaxed.
A bad DM makes bad rulings, players don't respect them, players frequently argue with them, and thus they cling to the DM screen and the power it gives to justify their positions.


But, like I said, it is not a 1 to 1 correlation. The teacher who taught me to play was a good DM, but a bit on the authoritarian side. The worst DM I had ever played with, at least until the "bad DM" that I met in 2014, basically made the rules up as he went along and was super relaxed, just terrible.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-07-18, 02:33 PM
I don't think the teacher in my first example was a jerk, just strict. He never openly gloated about his power. The game was still fun for the most part.
Not to mention that he was running for middle schoolers, also known as "the single most behaviorally unpleasant stage of human development."

Nifft
2017-07-18, 04:14 PM
Not to mention that he was running for middle schoolers, also known as "the single most behaviorally unpleasant stage of human development."

Yeah, I feel this is important.

Also, by default, teachers are authority figures for students.

That sort of authority-figure-like behavior would be socially acceptable in general and in public, totally divorced of any gaming context.

goto124
2017-07-18, 10:10 PM
Does this mean that more immature players would play better with a more heavy-handed DM?

Nifft
2017-07-18, 10:25 PM
Does this mean that more immature players would play better with a more heavy-handed DM?

If their immaturity stems from being literally middle school students, then a good teacher might be a good DM, and as a teacher the DM might be more heavy-handed.

I don't think you can use an identical strategy for adults as you would on minors.

War_lord
2017-07-18, 11:37 PM
Really?

I don't think the teacher in my first example was a jerk, just strict. He never openly gloated about his power. The game was still fun for the most part.

...I thought I didn't need to address the teacher example, since I assumed most people understand that a middle school after school activity does not have the same dynamics as a group of adults meeting to take part in a hobby.

You're really not helping armor yourself against the accusations of the "Talakeal must be the problem" faction.


And I said, most of my experience comes from being behind the screen, I know that the more uptight I am the less fun everyone, including myself, has. Likewise I have played with numerous DMs which follow a pretty reasonable curve from "terrible" to "great" with most falling in the middle, and I have observed that there is a fairly strong (but by no means absolute) correlation between terrible GMs and authoritarian GMs.

"Uptight" and "authoritarian" are entirely subjective values. My players are my friends, I'm fair with them when making rulings, and if I mess up while running I fess up and apologize for the error. But ultimately I am the person who makes the rulings. Thankfully I don't have to deal with back seat DMing because 3 of my players are new to D&D and 1 of them is new to 5e, but if I did see it, I'd clamp down on it right away. Not because I'm an evil Nazi DM who hates his friends, but because arguments over rules and rulings aren't fun, take up time, and create bad feelings all around. If I'm at someone else's table, and they make a ruling that I know is wrong, I used to point it out. But I've stopped being that guy, because calling the DM out is only going to cause friction.


I came to this conclusion long before I even met any of the real jerks, so I am not sure how this has warped my perspective; rather I am simply shocked at how many people I have encountered recently, both in person and online, who equate being a good GM with being heavy handed and authoritarian.

If you haven't been at someone's table, you can't assess their style. Even if you have, just because you don't like a certain style of DM, doesn't mean they're bad at it.

Talakeal
2017-07-18, 11:51 PM
...I thought I didn't need to address the teacher example, since I assumed most people understand that a middle school after school activity does not have the same dynamics as a group of adults meeting to take part in a hobby.

You're really not helping armor yourself against the accusations of the "Talakeal must be the problem" faction.



"Uptight" and "authoritarian" are entirely subjective values. My players are my friends, I'm fair with them when making rulings, and if I mess up while running I fess up and apologize for the error. But ultimately I am the person who makes the rulings. Thankfully I don't have to deal with back seat DMing because 3 of my players are new to D&D and 1 of them is new to 5e, but if I did see it, I'd clamp down on it right away. Not because I'm an evil Nazi DM who hates his friends, but because arguments over rules and rulings aren't fun, take up time, and create bad feelings all around. If I'm at someone else's table, and they make a ruling that I know is wrong, I used to point it out. But I've stopped being that guy, because calling the DM out is only going to cause friction.



If you haven't been at someone's table, you can't assess their style. Even if you have, just because you don't like a certain style of DM, doesn't mean they're bad at it.

This is one of the rudest and most baffling attacks I have ever seen online. I actually cannot fathom how you are getting that I am a problem player from anything I have said in this thread, or why you would feel the need to be so openly hostile when I have done my best to maintain a polite tone, so I am just going to be the bigger person and wish you a good night.

scalyfreak
2017-07-19, 12:12 AM
I am simply shocked at how many people I have encountered recently, both in person and online, who equate being a good GM with being heavy handed and authoritarian.

Have you considered the possibility that your interpretation of these people, at least online,is wrong?

Your posts suggest that you believe "the GM has final say in disputes" automatically also means that the GM is going to be heavy-handed and authoritarian. That's not true. Treating a GM as if it is true, will cause problems in any group, and will most likely make the GM treat you as the cause of those problem.

GMs deserve the same level of respect you want them to give you. A player who is not willing to give that respect simply because the GM is in a position of power within the game and occasionally exerts that power while the game is going on, is one of the definitions of a problem player.

Vitruviansquid
2017-07-19, 12:34 AM
Yeah dude. Having absolute power doesn't mean exercising absolute power, or abusing absolute power.

War_lord
2017-07-19, 01:52 AM
I was not being hostile. The fact that you took my direct criticism as an attack that you needed to immediately disengage from says a lot. I don't think you mean to make problematic statements and cause friction. But when you seem to consistently take any direct criticism as an assault and openly project a view that assertive GMing is equal to absolutist tyranny, it's not hard to see how that could serve to antagonize people.

Talakeal
2017-07-19, 04:04 AM
Have you considered the possibility that your interpretation of these people, at least online,is wrong?

Your posts suggest that you believe "the GM has final say in disputes" automatically also means that the GM is going to be heavy-handed and authoritarian. That's not true. Treating a GM as if it is true, will cause problems in any group, and will most likely make the GM treat you as the cause of those problem.

GMs deserve the same level of respect you want them to give you. A player who is not willing to give that respect simply because the GM is in a position of power within the game and occasionally exerts that power while the game is going on, is one of the definitions of a problem player.

Ok, what are we talking about here?

I certainly never said that I would disrespect a GM because they have power, however if they frequently abuse that power they are certainly going to lose my respect.

I never said that DM's will necessarily abuse their power, in my experience very few do so with anything resembling regularity. What I don't like is the idea that the DM is somehow infallible and that if there is a conflict the player is always at fault.

I have played in a ton of games over the years, ran far more, and observed quite a few without directly participating. There are often conflicts. Sometimes I feel that I was the "problem," other times the victim, and usually a bit of both. Likewise I have seen things which, from my perspective, were clearly the players fault, clearly the DM's fault and, again most often, a bit of both.

And when I am actually at the table I generally don't argue. Sometimes I will point something out to the DM, but I don't think I have ever actually argued a point during the game. Generally I will abide by the DM's call even if I feel it is the wrong one, because, as someone who DM's 9/10 times I understand the amount of work and pressure that goes into running the game and how frustrating it can be to have players hounding you over everything. And if I really feel that the DM is being a **** I will simply do my best to stay quiet and get out of the situation as fast as possible because I do not enjoy conflicts with people.

But I have seen plenty of jackass DMs over the years, (although, again, they are certainly the minority) and I have seen plenty of situations where a player would have been fully justified in defending themselves from obvious GM abuse. For example, aforementioned terri-bad DM had a compulsive need to criticize players, to the point where he would change the rules mid session, claim they had always been that way, and then mock players for not knowing the rules. That isn't being an authority figure, that is being a bully, and regardless of what the DMG says players have every right in the world to stand up to bullies.

Likewise, if a DM call if making the players miserable, I don't think there is anything wrong with talking to him about it. People talk about how important it is to keep the game going, but I would really rather spend 10 minutes discussing our issues like adults and hopefully resolving them instead of spending the rest of the session unhappy, and which side of the screen I happen to be on at the time doesn't change my feelings on that.


I was not being hostile. The fact that you took my direct criticism as an attack that you needed to immediately disengage from says a lot. I don't think you mean to make problematic statements and cause friction. But when you seem to consistently take any direct criticism as an assault and openly project a view that assertive GMing is equal to absolutist tyranny, it's not hard to see how that could serve to antagonize people.

Ok, I am sorry if I read too much into your post, but how does:


You're really not helping armor yourself against the accusations of the "Talakeal must be the problem" faction.

Not translate into hostility?

War_lord
2017-07-19, 04:20 AM
Because I'm not saying it to attack or insult you. I'm being honest about how you're coming across, sometimes we behave in ways that project an attitude different from our best intentions. A little introspection can go a long way. I know that from personal experience, it's tempting to blame others for our setbacks, but the better road is to look at yourself and ask what you could do differently. I'm not saying it's all your fault, but if you resolve to be conscious of when a bad situation is developing, and of your own tendency towards certain exacerbating behaviors, you could avoid a lot of the situations you find yourself in getting as extreme as they do.

Talakeal
2017-07-19, 01:52 PM
Because I'm not saying it to attack or insult you. I'm being honest about how you're coming across, sometimes we behave in ways that project an attitude different from our best intentions. A little introspection can go a long way. I know that from personal experience, it's tempting to blame others for our setbacks, but the better road is to look at yourself and ask what you could do differently. I'm not saying it's all your fault, but if you resolve to be conscious of when a bad situation is developing, and of your own tendency towards certain exacerbating behaviors, you could avoid a lot of the situations you find yourself in getting as extreme as they do.

Again, I am sorry if I read too much into your statement, but "must be the problem," does not read to me as "contributes to their own problems," or "sometimes causes problems of their own." Now, I recognize that you put it in quotes, but I certainly felt the inference was that my previous statement was causing you to agree with that sentiment.

I just couldn't follow your logic that my opinions had been "warped" by really terrible DMs when I hadn't even met said terrible DMs when my opinions were formed, which as I explained was primarily over many years of watching how players reacted to my own behavior, or how my inability to follow someone's argument on the internet meant that I was probably the source of the problems in gaming groups.

Like I have said, my gaming horror stories are almost entirely about a few people who, for whatever reason, I continued to game with rather than just finding someone else. I get along with the vast majority of people fine, while I see these same people getting into fights with other players and hear about all sorts of gaming horror stories about situations where I wasn't even present, so the thought that I am somehow the primary source of my problems with these people is simply ludicrous. Now, do I sometimes contribute to the problems or react in the wrong way, of course, as I have said up thread many times I am a flawed human and I make mistakes.

kyoryu
2017-07-19, 02:23 PM
Nobody can rules-lawyer without the DM's complicity.

This.

The answer is the GM says "make your case, I'll make a judgement, and you can review with me after the game."

That's not a matter of authoritarianism. It's a matter of *keeping the game going*, while still allowing a forum for disagreements with bringing the game to a screeching halt.

goto124
2017-07-19, 07:22 PM
while still allowing a forum for disagreements with bringing the game to a screeching halt.

Hey... :smallamused:

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

Talakeal
2017-07-19, 07:43 PM
Hey... :smallamused:

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

Yes. I certainly never resolved a lot of the big arguments that came up in my 3.5 game like whether non detection blocked true seeing, whether caustic blast could damage an acid immune creature, or whether or not shapechanging into a form of a creature with sorcerer casting abilities could allow you to cast the spells immediately or if you needed an eight hour rest first.

Even the internet disagrees on a lot of the rules of 3.x.

Keltest
2017-07-19, 08:03 PM
Yes. I certainly never resolved a lot of the big arguments that came up in my 3.5 game like whether non detection blocked true seeing, whether caustic blast could damage an acid immune creature, or whether or not shapechanging into a form of a creature with sorcerer casting abilities could allow you to cast the spells immediately or if you needed an eight hour rest first.

Even the internet disagrees on a lot of the rules of 3.x.

Was the GM involved in any of those? Because "The Gm says non-detection blocks true seeing" is a resolution even if you disagree with it.

Talakeal
2017-07-19, 09:34 PM
Was the GM involved in any of those? Because "The Gm says non-detection blocks true seeing" is a resolution even if you disagree with it.

And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

JAL_1138
2017-07-19, 09:45 PM
And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

AMFV
2017-07-19, 09:49 PM
And what if we are both DMs of our respective games? Or what if we are just two people who arent even playing a game at the time and are merely trying to figure out the best resolution to an a bigously worded rule?

Well then any rules debate you guys have is a moot point, since each of you are the authority in your own games, and will likely go with your interpretation in your own games, as is what you should do. Now there's no real reason to have this kind of argument unless you enjoy it. Which is just fine.

goto124
2017-07-19, 09:55 PM
I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

Correct. Sorry for not clarifying.

Talakeal
2017-07-19, 10:11 PM
I think "the actual out-of-game argument" referred to a situation in which there had been a rules dispute between a player and a DM during a game that was passed off 'till after the game for discussion, not any situation where any rule was in dispute between two people who weren't necessarily in the same game.

In all of those situations I mentioned I was the DM and was not able to find a concrete RAW answer to the problem and had to fall back on rule zero, I was just trying to present some alternate scenarios to avoid the inevitable semantic argument that results in trying to discuss playing a game by RAI rather than DM fiat.

kyoryu
2017-07-20, 02:18 PM
Hey... :smallamused:

Has anyone ever failed to resolve a rules dispute in the out-of-the-actual-game argument?

Not I. Sometimes it comes down to GM judgement, if the rule is missing or unclear, but I've never failed to come to an agreement.

Amphetryon
2017-07-21, 04:49 PM
I was just trying to present some alternate scenarios to avoid the inevitable semantic argument that results in trying to discuss playing a game by RAI rather than DM fiat.

I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-21, 04:59 PM
I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

In D&D 3.5, by the rules, when you begin to drown you go to 0 hp. So if someone is already below 0 hp, by the rules, you can stick a dying person's head in a bucket of water and when they begin to drown they will get healed by it.

This is a situation where you can clearly make a judgement on what the rules actually intended.

Talakeal
2017-07-21, 05:01 PM
I am unable to come up with a scenario where RAI and GM Fiat are substantially different, barring direct clarification from the game's writers. Any group I know will have their own ideas for how certain game rules are intended to function; the more niche the interaction, the less likely the game has a specific ruling in place. How you separating the two?

Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

Jay R
2017-07-21, 08:53 PM
The reason so many arguments seem to you to be "merely" semantic arguments is that we do not agree on the meaning of certain phrases, and our biggest differences are about meaning (and are therefore semantic arguments) rather than about the game. For instance:


Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

Yes, of course. The biggest difference is that the first one, ruling on sword sages, really happens regularly. It's called both RAI and DM fiat.

The second one is the kind of thing I've rarely seen. And when I do, it's called "houserules".


In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

It is a fairly obvious line. The first one is pretty common and is called either RAI or DM fiat. There's a big difference between that and the house rule you describe as "changing a clear and explicit rule".

AMFV
2017-07-21, 08:58 PM
Really?

Do you not see the difference between, say, a DM deciding that sword sages receiving 6x skill points is a typo and they get 4x like everyone else, vs. deciding that long spears should do d12 base damage because they think that spears are under represented in fantasy compared to RL historical combat.

In my mind the line between coming up with a working solution to an ambiguous or "dysfunctional" rule and changing a clear and explicit rule is usually a fairly obvious one, although like always I am sure there are some corner cases.

I don't see a logical difference between those two examples. One of them you are assuming that there is a typo, the other one you are assuming that the intended effect is different than the actual effect. Also unless you have clarification there is NO way to make the assumption that Swordsages aren't intended to have 6x skill points. It certainly makes sense for the class to have that many, so your assumption that it's a typo is as much you making a judgement call as somebody else altering a rule.

Talakeal
2017-07-21, 09:39 PM
The reason so many arguments seem to you to be "merely" semantic arguments is that we do not agree on the meaning of certain phrases, and our biggest differences are about meaning (and are therefore semantic arguments) rather than about the game. For instance:



Yes, of course. The biggest difference is that the first one, ruling on sword sages, really happens regularly. It's called both RAI and DM fiat.

The second one is the kind of thing I've rarely seen. And when I do, it's called "houserules".



It is a fairly obvious line. The first one is pretty common and is called either RAI or DM fiat. There's a big difference between that and the house rule you describe as "changing a clear and explicit rule".

So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

But still, afaict AMFV and Amphetyron both seem to be of the opinion that there is no difference between a GM making a ruling in the case of ambiguous or dysfunctional rules and changing a perfectly clear rule that they don't like for whatever reason, and that was the opinion I was disagreeing with in the quoted passage.

Keltest
2017-07-21, 09:58 PM
So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

But still, afaict AMFV and Amphetyron both seem to be of the opinion that there is no difference between a GM making a ruling in the case of ambiguous or dysfunctional rules and changing a perfectly clear rule that they don't like for whatever reason, and that was the opinion I was disagreeing with in the quoted passage.

if that was your intent, you picked a poor example. Swordsage skill points, while quite possibly (I might even say probably) a typo, are not at all ambiguous.

Talakeal
2017-07-21, 09:59 PM
if that was your intent, you picked a poor example. Swordsage skill points, while quite possibly (I might even say probably) a typo, are not at all ambiguous.

Hence the "dysfunctional" which I was using as a catch all category for rules that, for whatever reason, do not appear to work the way that the designers intended them to.

Jay R
2017-07-21, 10:05 PM
So we are just disagreeing on the term FIAT then? I am fine tossing out that term as I agree it doesn't really have any good specific meaning.

No, not at all. We are disagreeing on your idea that the DM having the final say means bad decisions, and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.

I don't care what phrase you use to refer to the fact that in D&D and many games, the DM is the referee and makes final rulings so the game can proceed without further argument. Using any phrase or any word to describe it, the fact is that good DMs make good rulings and poor DMs make poor ruling. We disagree anytime you use some phrase to imply that DMs who make rulings, as the rules allow, inherently make poor rulings.

Talakeal
2017-07-21, 10:21 PM
No, not at all. We are disagreeing on your idea that the DM having the final say means bad decisions, and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.

I don't care what phrase you use to refer to the fact that in D&D and many games, the DM is the referee and makes final rulings so the game can proceed without further argument. Using any phrase or any word to describe it, the fact is that good DMs make good rulings and poor DMs make poor ruling. We disagree anytime you use some phrase to imply that DMs who make rulings, as the rules allow, inherently make poor rulings.

So then we don't disagree on anything then, because I don't think there is any real correlation between quality of rulings and whether they are made by one individual or by committee.

I do think that if the DM is dismissive of the player's opinions you are more likely to have upset players which, in the long run, will probably be more disruptive to the game than simply pausing the game to talk an issue out now and again, and that, in my experience, DMs who are prone to make bad decisions are more likely to take offense at criticism and hide behind rule 0, but that is in no way saying that the DM having the final say means bad decisions and the DM not having the final say means good decisions.


Edit: Although, I would theorize that a GM who takes the time to listen to the player's side of every issue and then consider what they have to say will probably tend to make better decisions than a DM who always goes it alone simply because two heads are often better than one. Whether or not this is worth the added time or the change to the social dynamic, though, I am reluctant to say.

Talakeal
2017-08-06, 02:35 PM
So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.



All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

Guizonde
2017-08-06, 02:57 PM
All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

so, they want characters created in 5 minutes who've got a 3 turn life expectancy?

damn, they'd really hate playing with my homebrew, that's actually too complex for mook building. we've got a "power level" for victims npc's and a standard load-out. it's up to the dm to mod the values and gear. the best gear does not guarantee the best mook, either. i remember throwing a curve ball to my power-gaming b team by getting a team of 9 under-powered mooks and giving them a cannibal trapper mentality. that cured that team of underestimating tripwires and weighted nets... then again, they kept torching every hallway first before heanding into them just in case there was another team of stealthy psycho-savages. they were almost relieved when next session the medic got gutshot by a plasma gun. doomguy clones, they can deal with. cunning sentinel island natives, they have trouble with.

tiny difference, i was playing by the rules, and during the breakdown of the fight (of course, they thought i was cheating) i broke down why i rolled so many bloody dice: stealth, silent move, aiming, team cohesion, silent speaking, getting into cover, and of course attacks of opportunity. they got frustrated, but learned the lesson that i'd been saying since session 1: talk to your team, and get your butt into cover. they did that for every combat from basically session 6 or seven to the endgame around session 17.

... no i've never read tucker's kobolds. why do you ask?

Vitruviansquid
2017-08-06, 02:59 PM
So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.



All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

I think most people would call that rules lawyering.

These players are slowing the game down and being onerous to other players in order to argue about what they think should be allowed or not allowed in the game. That's the textbook definition of rules lawyering to me.

edit: And yeah, I agree your players are being entitled and foolish, but I think that's beside the point of the example.

Amphetryon
2017-08-07, 01:46 PM
In D&D 3.5, by the rules, when you begin to drown you go to 0 hp. So if someone is already below 0 hp, by the rules, you can stick a dying person's head in a bucket of water and when they begin to drown they will get healed by it.

This is a situation where you can clearly make a judgement on what the rules actually intended.

And 2 Rounds later, the drowning Character is dead, barring Fiat. That level of 'healing' will, of course, function differently depending on which group is playing.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-08-07, 02:08 PM
And 2 Rounds later, the drowning Character is dead, barring Fiat. That level of 'healing' will, of course, function differently depending on which group is playing.

I mean, that's the competing rules lawyer interpretation. Both are still examples of rules lawyering.

daniel_ream
2017-08-07, 06:13 PM
All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work

Personally I think that's entirely reasonable, but then I'm the guy who advocated chucking all the complicated build mechanics for M&M in favour of It Just Works Like This +2.

I will say this, "rules lawyer" **** well does has a well-understood definition that's been consistent for forty years.


It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game.

People arguing what "rules lawyer" means by using literal definitions of the words "rules" and "lawyer" are rules-lawyering the definition of "rules lawyer".

This is why we can't have nice things.

Xuc Xac
2017-08-07, 11:46 PM
Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

Quertus
2017-08-08, 11:24 AM
As a rule, when we authorize someone to create content for a game (be GM), we usually expect them, because of their superior knowledge of the content of the world, to act as umpire / rules referee. This allows the players to experience the magic and wonder of the unknown, rather than forcing them to act with perfect knowledge to make rulings. But you'd bloody well better expect that we expect and demand that the referee actually follow the rules of the game, else we'll call him on it. And, in my neck of the woods, beating up a bad referee after the game has been known to happen. GMs should expect similar levels of "respect".

Now, fortunately for GMs, many players are more than willing to help out, citing rules to help the game run well, and to prevent the necessity of retcon, let alone the threat of physical violence against the GM (which I'm only aware of happening twice).


Does this mean that more immature players would play better with a more heavy-handed DM?

I don't know about that, but more immature GMs seem better handled by more heavy-handed players, IME.


You're really not helping armor yourself against the accusations of the "Talakeal must be the problem" faction.

For the record, Talakeal, if I say something like this, I'm not attacking you, either. Just pointing out where you may be creating the wrong impression, and may wish to rephrase or explain.


Thankfully I don't have to deal with back seat DMing, but if I did see it, I'd clamp down on it right away. because arguments over rules and rulings aren't fun, take up time, and create bad feelings all around. If I'm at someone else's table, and they make a ruling that I know is wrong, I used to point it out. But I've stopped being that guy, because calling the DM out is only going to cause friction.

Under a good chill GM, it doesn't cause friction - it is appreciated. Be that GM.


So, I actually got to run a game this last weekend, and overall it went pretty well, but it reminded me of why my definition of Rules Lawyer is probably pretty different from most other people.

See, I don't mind if the players question a ruling or even argue over vague rules, what gets my goat is when someone (and it could be the player or a DM) is simply a stickler for the rules.

I get this most often when I build NPCs and don't follow the same rules as the players. The players then demand an accounting, and then won't let it go if I simply say "that's how it is, please drop it."

For example:

Rather than working out a build for an NPC I simply give them the abilities I want them to have.

Instead of memorizing a spell list before the game I simply let the enemy wizard cast whatever spell is appropriate at the time. Sometimes I don't even keep track of spell slots.

Rather than specifying the exact size of an enemy force I will simply say something like "d3 enemies enter the battle every turn and will continue to do so until their leader is killed."

Or I will decline to list out an NPCs magic items and instead give them an inherent bonus to their dice rolls that is roughly equivalent to what magic items should give an NPC of their level.

All of this is just DMing shorthand that saves me a ton of time and prep work, but when my players catch me doing it they will not let it go until I "spill the beans" and tell them how it is possible, and then make sarcastic comments for the rest of the night about how the NPCs are playing by different rules than they are and how it would be nice if they could be NPCs.

Well, as a self-proclaimed rules lawyer, I'm glad you are chill enough to accept people questioning the rules.

But as to your specific issue... Hmmm... This is complex.

Let me start here: there are those who believe that one of the best things to come out of D&D (3e) is that PCs and NPCs are built off the same rules. I am not one of them, but it seems clear that your style is detrimental to that group's fun.

See, I'm more than just a rules lawyer, I'm a guardian of fun. So, the question is, what does it benefit the game for you to make this change, and is it worth it?

It sounds like you are saying that it makes the game easier for you to run. But your players are clearly saying, no, it's not worth it. If you cannot get their buy-in, I suggest you either design encounters that are easier to run by the books, or man up and run things "right". Because, from what I hear, I don't think fun will be had otherwise.

That having been said, in a different group, plenty of your tactics would have gone over just fine. I've seen both groups which accept, and groups which reject, each of your individual shortcuts.

Myself, I only use descriptive shortcuts. For example, once (in an older edition of D&D), a pc sent their familiar to scout. I told a player that familiar reported 1,000 enemy troops. The player balked, asking how their familiar had such a concept as a thousand. I smiled, and explained that they didn't: it was "one, none, none, none". This left them even more baffled how it could not only have a concept it doesn't have, but be able to translate it to a concept it did have. A bit of prompting, and they discovered that their familiar had run into an old ally, who (by being able to speak with it) was helping the familiar provide a better scouting report. EDIT: they hadn't told their familiar to report on allies, only on enemies. Thus did they discover the flaw in their simple instruction.

Personally, I prefer that, if someone breaks the rules, it's the PCs. There are two reasons for this.

Number one, coolness points. This cool, interesting, awesome, unique thing? It should be a PC. NPCs shouldn't have that level of cool, even ignoring the correlation between overly cool NPCs and Mary SUE Files stuff.

Second, if less than 0.01% of the world is subject to breaking the rules, well, it's cool that I'm adventuring with such a statistical anomaly. But, when over 99.99% of the world can no longer be trusted to run by the rules, that's not a consistent world to base decisions on. Tactics? what's that? Worse, we're apparently the 0.01% of the world that's lousy enough to be bound by the rules. It's like running a party of paraplegic mortals in WoD. Who does that?

So, talk with your players, understand the source of their objections, and work together to determine what can be done to produce a game that will be fun for all involved.

EDIT:
Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

I would point out when rules errors were wrong in my favor. By your definitions, I'm not a rules lawyer. By your definitions, what am I?

Talakeal
2017-08-08, 12:53 PM
Well, as a self-proclaimed rules lawyer, I'm glad you are chill enough to accept people questioning the rules.

But as to your specific issue... Hmmm... This is complex.

Let me start here: there are those who believe that one of the best things to come out of D&D (3e) is that PCs and NPCs are built off the same rules. I am not one of them, but it seems clear that your style is detrimental to that group's fun.

See, I'm more than just a rules lawyer, I'm a guardian of fun. So, the question is, what does it benefit the game for you to make this change, and is it worth it?

It sounds like you are saying that it makes the game easier for you to run. But your players are clearly saying, no, it's not worth it. If you cannot get their buy-in, I suggest you either design encounters that are easier to run by the books, or man up and run things "right". Because, from what I hear, I don't think fun will be had otherwise.

That having been said, in a different group, plenty of your tactics would have gone over just fine. I've seen both groups which accept, and groups which reject, each of your individual shortcuts.

Myself, I only use descriptive shortcuts. For example, once (in an older edition of D&D), a pc sent their familiar to scout. I told a player that familiar reported 1,000 enemy troops. The player balked, asking how their familiar had such a concept as a thousand. I smiled, and explained that they didn't: it was "one, none, none, none". This left them even more baffled how it could not only have a concept it doesn't have, but be able to translate it to a concept it did have. A bit of prompting, and they discovered that their familiar had run into an old ally, who (by being able to speak with it) was helping the familiar provide a better scouting report. EDIT: they hadn't told their familiar to report on allies, only on enemies. Thus did they discover the flaw in their simple instruction.

Personally, I prefer that, if someone breaks the rules, it's the PCs. There are two reasons for this.

Number one, coolness points. This cool, interesting, awesome, unique thing? It should be a PC. NPCs shouldn't have that level of cool, even ignoring the correlation between overly cool NPCs and Mary SUE Files stuff.

Second, if less than 0.01% of the world is subject to breaking the rules, well, it's cool that I'm adventuring with such a statistical anomaly. But, when over 99.99% of the world can no longer be trusted to run by the rules, that's not a consistent world to base decisions on. Tactics? what's that? Worse, we're apparently the 0.01% of the world that's lousy enough to be bound by the rules. It's like running a party of paraplegic mortals in WoD. Who does that?

So, talk with your players, understand the source of their objections, and work together to determine what can be done to produce a game that will be fun for all involved.

EDIT:

I would point out when rules errors were wrong in my favor. By your definitions, I'm not a rules lawyer. By your definitions, what am I?

Mostly it is "quantum ogre" stuff, I just use a lot behind the screen shortcuts to cut down on prep time, but the players want to "peak behind the screen".


Personally I think that's entirely reasonable, but then I'm the guy who advocated chucking all the complicated build mechanics for M&M in favour of It Just Works Like This +2.

I will say this, "rules lawyer" **** well does has a well-understood definition that's been consistent for forty years.



People arguing what "rules lawyer" means by using literal definitions of the words "rules" and "lawyer" are rules-lawyering the definition of "rules lawyer".

This is why we can't have nice things.


Another important point is that rules lawyers are not just sticklers for following the rules exactly. If the GM makes a rules error in the player's favor, a rules stickler would point it out: "actually, I should take 8 points of damage not 4 because his guisarme-voulge-fauchard-ranseur-staff-club gets a X2 bonus against brown armor and I'm wearing tanned but undyed leather". A rules lawyer would let it slide and only argues when a bit of ambiguity can be exploited for personal advantage: "I get a +2 when the sun is visible in the sky. I know it's night right now, but the rules don't say 'visible to me'. I'm sure it's visible to someone on the other side of the world right now..."

Over time the term Rules Lawyer has come to mean a lot of different things to different people, basically it has become so broad it simply means "using the rules in a way I don't like."

Common examples seem to include:

Following the letter of the rules but ignoring the spirit
Being a stickler for the rules
Twisting the wording to gain something clearly not intended
Players who question or argue with the DM
Etc.

Some people also require that the above are done to excess, maliciously, or to gain an advantage.

Guizonde
2017-08-08, 10:08 PM
Mostly it is "quantum ogre" stuff, I just use a lot behind the screen shortcuts to cut down on prep time, but the players want to "peak behind the screen".


despite never using one, i'm a firm believer in the players never gaining access to behind the gm screen, that's like peeking behind the fourth wall. i use a 4th wall mechanic in my game, but that's for humor's sake and coolness points. my players gain access to the dm's secrets only when the campaign is over. my last team member to dm added a mechanic that robots were healed by electricity-based weaponry. that wasn't a mechanic before and we used to taze robots when we were lacking emp's. it made for a refreshing combat encounter where we had to think on our feet instead of stunning said robot and going at it with crowbars (as usual). your players would consider that cheating on the dm's part. for us, it made it awesome, if deadly.





Over time the term Rules Lawyer has come to mean a lot of different things to different people, basically it has become so broad it simply means "using the rules in a way I don't like."

Common examples seem to include:

Following the letter of the rules but ignoring the spirit
Being a stickler for the rules
Twisting the wording to gain something clearly not intended
Players who question or argue with the DM
Etc.

Some people also require that the above are done to excess, maliciously, or to gain an advantage.

i'd add:

following the spirit but not the letter (see truenaming, even if that's to make a class playable)
rules haggling (ie two different outcomes, one advantageous, one less so)
willful misinterpretation of the rules (summoning a whale in a dungeon to instakill enemies and the summoned creature), so twisting the mechanics to gain something clearly not intended.

being a stickler is fine. my game would be unplayable without fate points, so we make a pretty big deal about how or when they're used or burned. quertus is a stickler, but never to the detriment of the group's fun. that's not being a rules lawyer, that's being internally consistent. i'd wager on more than one occasion quertus called out a rule that bogged down fun and homebrewed a replacement for maximum fun with the group's approval.


I would point out when rules errors were wrong in my favor. By your definitions, I'm not a rules lawyer. By your definitions, what am I?
"shut up you dope!" or as i'd call it, the "nerd asking if the teacher gives out homework over the weekend" syndrome.
more seriously, that's just being fair play. i've lost count of how many times my team's done this, including a quote in the random quotes thread:

dm: why did you bayonet charge the endgame boss?! (didn't you know it wouldn't end well?)
me: i was out of ammo and didn't have time to reload.

a few things: it was true, and was very unoptimized for me to do so (i ended up nearly dying to the ensuing melee, but i won by burning a fate point). second, i wasn't about to lie about my ammo count even if i got torn to pieces by a chainaxe the next round. third, internal consistency: the gentleman's agreement we session zero specifically states players keep track of their ammo, dm keeps track of npc ammo. finally, it's the fair play thing to do.
yes, this was used to give an empty gun to an npc to gain an underhanded advantage once. this was also used by the dm to make a player remember to check his ammo count.

Quertus
2017-08-10, 04:11 PM
Mostly it is "quantum ogre" stuff, I just use a lot behind the screen shortcuts to cut down on prep time, but the players want to "peak behind the screen".

Letting the NPC wizards cast whatever, without memorizing or checking spell slots, doesn't sound like quantum ogre to me...

Regardless, sit down with your players, get their take on the situation. Find out what they don't like, and discuss what would be acceptable alternatives.


my players gain access to the dm's secrets only when the campaign is over.

That's often enough. Sometimes, though, it can be good for building trust. And sometimes, the story of what went on backstage just won't wait until the end of the campaign.


being a stickler is fine. my game would be unplayable without fate points, so we make a pretty big deal about how or when they're used or burned. quertus is a stickler, but never to the detriment of the group's fun. that's not being a rules lawyer, that's being internally consistent. i'd wager on more than one occasion quertus called out a rule that bogged down fun and homebrewed a replacement for maximum fun with the group's approval.

You give me too much credit. :smallredface: Let's say I try.

Off hand, the best house rule of that sort I can remember instigating involved spell ranges in MtG, specifically for Emperor.


"shut up you dope!" or as i'd call it, the "nerd asking if the teacher gives out homework over the weekend" syndrome.
more seriously, that's just being fair play. i've lost count of how many times my team's done this, including a quote in the random quotes thread:

dm: why did you bayonet charge the endgame boss?! (didn't you know it wouldn't end well?)
me: i was out of ammo and didn't have time to reload.

a few things: it was true, and was very unoptimized for me to do so (i ended up nearly dying to the ensuing melee, but i won by burning a fate point). second, i wasn't about to lie about my ammo count even if i got torn to pieces by a chainaxe the next round. third, internal consistency: the gentleman's agreement we session zero specifically states players keep track of their ammo, dm keeps track of npc ammo. finally, it's the fair play thing to do.
yes, this was used to give an empty gun to an npc to gain an underhanded advantage once. this was also used by the dm to make a player remember to check his ammo count.

Obviously, I approve of your team's sense of fair play.

Talakeal
2017-08-11, 01:10 PM
Letting the NPC wizards cast whatever, without memorizing or checking spell slots, doesn't sound like quantum ogre to me...

This specific example was actually from when I ran the classic Dragonlance modules. The modules instructed the DM to only keep track of the NPC caster's highest level spells (later it was highest 2 spell levels, and then highest 3 spell level at the end) as it saved the DM a ton of prep-work and book keeping, and helped a DM to RP a superhumanly wise and or intelligent caster with a lifetime of experience.

Now, it does seem a bit more "crunchy" than the standard quantum ogre, but it is fundamentally the same, both of them involve NPC decisions that remain in a quantum state when until they come up in game, in the ogre's case it is where they happen to be making their lair, in the wizard's case it is what spells they have bothered to learn / memorize.


Now, the question is; does it give the NPC an unfair advantage? Well... maybe.

See, take two DM's prepping for the same encounter with a high level wizard.

The first DM carefully looks at the capabilities of the NPC, the PCs, and the environment in which they will fight, spends a lot of time imagining what sort of preparations and tactics that wizard would be able to use, possibly with access to divinations to help, and then pours over the spell list and carefully selects exactly the spells they think will give the NPC the best chance of victory.

The second DM simply hand waives all that work and casts whatever their gut tells them would be most useful at that moment on the fly.


Its really hard for me to say which one of these would be the more difficult encounter, but I can sure say which one is more difficult for the DM to run.


Regardless, sit down with your players, get their take on the situation. Find out what they don't like, and discuss what would be acceptable alternatives.

I have tried that many times over the years, it has never gotten anywhere. The players always see where I am coming from, but it still "feels wrong" to them even if I can explain it logically.

I would personally wish they would just except things at face value and stop questioning every little decision I make as these shortcuts are impossible to see from across the screen, but I can't really expect them to do that.

And, I can't really blame them. After spending two years playing under the worst DM ever who openly fudged every dice roll and didn't keep track of monster HP and instead had them die whenever he felt that fight should be over I can see why players would be leery of DM shortcuts or potential cheating.

My general rule of thumb is to not do anything that nullifies the deliberate choices or actions of the players either at the table or in the character creation phase, but its often a tough line to find.

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-11, 02:11 PM
Questioning a ruling because it differs from an actual rule in the book and hasn't been officially indicated as a house rule is not being a jerk, at all. Everyone needs to know the rules of the game they are playing, including how and where the DM plans to deviate from the rules. The DM should tell you up front that they plan on mostly ignoring the book in favor of their own impromptu rulings, so you know not to question them based on what it says in the book, or that certain specific rules or situations that are covered in the book will be handled differently.

Sometimes it's in how you question things that might make a difference. The words you choose and the tone of voice and mannerisms. "DM, you're wrong! The rules are like this, not that! what the f-?!" is probably not a good way to do it.
"I'm not trying to argue, but I thought this ability worked differently. In the book it says x-y and z. Are we doing it this way from now on?" - DM gives you an answer, and you say "ok, cool. just checking." - That type of exchange sounds completely reasonable to me and shouldn't cause anyone upset.

"Since I didn't know that it would work that way, can I take back my action and make a different choice, please?" and try to take it in stride if the answer is "no" instead of arguing and stopping play any further. On the other hand, "F- You DM! I never would have done that if I knew it worked that way! You are royally screwing me over right now!" is probably less likely to get a favorable response.

If you have a DM who makes it clear that no questioning of rulings whatsoever, for any reason, will be tolerated - well then you can make an informed choice about whether you want to play in that game and risk having things not working the way you expect them to at random times.

In fact, you don't need the rules to role play. Now, you need the rules to meta game a role playing game.

daniel_ream
2017-08-11, 03:26 PM
Now, the question is; does it give the NPC an unfair advantage? Well... maybe.

RPGs aren't chess.


And, I can't really blame them. After spending two years playing under the worst DM ever who openly fudged every dice roll and didn't keep track of monster HP and instead had them die whenever he felt that fight should be over I can see why players would be leery of DM shortcuts or potential cheating.

I have worked with people with moderate to severe Complex PTSD for the last five years or so and I never cease to be amazed at the similar dysfunctional behaviour I see from players complaining about bad GMs.

If your players have been so traumatized by bad GMs that they can't handle an RPG unless it's played like a game of Descent: Journeys in the Dark, then maybe they should stop playing RPGs entirely for a while until they recalibrate their trust meters.


After spending two years playing under the worst DM ever

I ask this not out of snark, but because I honestly want to know the answer: why did you play more than two sessions with this GM, let alone two years? Why continue going back for two years of play sessions with a DM you didn't like?

Talakeal
2017-08-11, 04:12 PM
I ask this not out of snark, but because I honestly want to know the answer: why did you play more than two sessions with this GM, let alone two years? Why continue going back for two years of play sessions with a DM you didn't like?

Basically I am not very good at confrontations or saying no to people and we were both players in another game which was run by best GM I have ever played with, so cutting off all contact with the bad GM would have also meant cutting of all contact with the good GM.

Amphetryon
2017-08-11, 05:34 PM
But still, afaict AMFV and Amphetyron both seem to be of the opinion that there is no difference between a GM making a ruling in the case of ambiguous or dysfunctional rules and changing a perfectly clear rule that they don't like for whatever reason, and that was the opinion I was disagreeing with in the quoted passage.As I don't recall saying any such thing, I ask that you either quote me making this assertion, or avoid putting words in my mouth.

daniel_ream
2017-08-11, 07:45 PM
Basically I am not very good at confrontations or saying no to people and we were both players in another game which was run by best GM I have ever played with, so cutting off all contact with the bad GM would have also meant cutting of all contact with the good GM.

Hold on a second. Why do you equate "not playing with the bad GM" with "cutting off all contact with the bad GM, including the game we're both playing in"? I didn't say that.

Do you feel, now, in hindsight, that spending two years in a badly run game that damaged your ability to enjoy the game with future players was better than simply walking away from one bad game? Or even walking away from one bad game and one good one?

Talakeal
2017-08-11, 07:59 PM
Hold on a second. Why do you equate "not playing with the bad GM" with "cutting off all contact with the bad GM, including the game we're both playing in"? I didn't say that.

Do you feel, now, in hindsight, that spending two years in a badly run game that damaged your ability to enjoy the game with future players was better than simply walking away from one bad game? Or even walking away from one bad game and one good one?

Like I said, I am bad at at confrontations and saying no to people. When I am hanging out with someone for four hours every week it is really hard for me to keep saying no to them, especially when I am trying not to create an uncomfortable or antagonistic situation for the good game.

Also, I wouldnt say it has damaged my ability to enjoy other games at all, merely that it has allowed me to synoathize with players and see both sides of the issues.

But in hindsight, yes, the enjoyment of the good game was absolutely worth the frustration of the bad.

Talakeal
2017-08-13, 08:12 PM
As I don't recall saying any such thing, I ask that you either quote me making this assertion, or avoid putting words in my mouth.

It was an inference, not an assertion, hence why I used language like "seem" and "as far as I can tell," rather than definitive statements.

Not really anything to directly quote either, just the impression I was getting, mostly from posts like #102 and #107.