Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls
![]() |
|
Johnn’s answer:
Hi Denise, thanks very much for writing in with your question. I am going to focus on the rules aspect of your query, because I do not think your group size is part of the problem based on what you’ve asked. Large groups do pose problems for GMs, but not necessarily with the rules, so if you feel group size is a separate problem, let us know and we can offer tips on that.
Rules, rules as written (RAW), house rules, and rules interpretation and ambiguity have been a source of millions of words for roleplayers in forums and blogs and Usenet over the years. It is the nature of the hobby and will not go away.
When I GM a new group, I work with them right away to lay down a common agreement for handling rules, rulings and rules disagreements. You want a baseline to set expectations and procedures so the group knows what to do when a situation arises. This causes far fewer interpersonal issues than having to figure out protocol in the heat of the moment.
If you have not done so, I would pause immediately and work this out with your group. Set a global set of guidelines for handling rules, without pointing fingers, and for handling various situations. When a situation comes up that is not covered by the group’s agreement, then hammer a new guideline out and append it to the agreement. The act of establishing the initial agreement should make future updates to it easier, assuming you follow the same process.
Draft up group guidelines
Start with drafting something up yourself. Let it sit for a couple days, then look at it again with fresh eyes and tweak as necessary. Unfortunately, I have not drafted up written guidelines for my groups in the past. I have always given my GM ramble covering this stuff in the first session verbally, and then have not had a big enough problem that required me to document the group’s guidelines.
In your case, you should get it all out in writing so you can refer back to it, because your group has already been gaming together and you are mid-campaign, so you already have habits, precedents and set ways of doing things. It will take a bit to change habits and expectations, and you will need written reminders to enforce the new ways. A written document also makes getting group consensus easier, when you are at that stage.
To help, I’ll summarize my spiel to new groups. I get away with a verbal-only agreement because I tend to vett new players carefully, and with new groups we approach gameplay with fresh and open minds and no baggage with each other. My guidelines:
- As GM, I always makes the final call, even if it’s unpopular with a group member, just to keep the game moving along.
- I am happy to redress GM calls between sessions, if players want to chat about them; and while I won’t redo gameplay to accommodate new rulings, we will carrying on gameplay with the new rulings.
- I will get group input on any rules calls during games and facilitate discussion for a couple minutes or so. After that, I’ll call for group vote and unanimous votes come into play immediately. Failed votings are open to redress between sessions.
- In case of contentious issues, I will exercise GM veto and GM final say, but always with an eye toward fairness for each player and their character (I do not care so much about fairness towards enemy NPCs and monsters as I can tweak things as needed to accommodate new rulings).
- If a ruling takes up more than a few minutes, we’ll park it for group chat by email between sessions and either go with rules as written or GM’s call.
- My main goals as GM are fun, fairness and consistency. The players will have to trust me on that, even if I make a ruling they dislike. My door is always open between sessions and I’m open to feedback, even on a personal level.
It comes off more formal in writing than how I say it at the game table, but that’s the gist of it. A couple of other guidelines have just come to mind as well:
- In case of an important ruling (i.e. a PC’s major success or failure depends on it) we’ll call a break and give the group 15 mins or so to research, present viewpoints and vote.
- Once we make a ruling, it’s that way for the rest of the campaign unless new evidence comes to light, or gameplay reveals an issue with it, such as an exploit, imbalance or backlash.
That last one has helped get players thinking about the bigger picture when discussing and voting on rulings. The new ruling might affect them in the future, and even PC-specific rulings have been known to bite a player who introduces a new character after a character death later in a campaign. Caveat emptor.
In addition to this information, I also ramble on about showing respect for the group and each other by doing such things as showing up for games on time, canceling with at least a couple days’ notice unless it’s unavoidable, speaking low when it’s not your turn, and giving each other positive feedback and trying to work as a team. I end by saying the GM is always open to bribes. Then I say that was a joke. Then I say not really. Then I say haha and ask everyone to roll initiative so we can finally get the game going! :)
Group input
With draft in hand, distribute it to your players for feedback and changes. I would do this in person, as you can position the purpose and process to your group better than by email where things get lost in translation. Face to face, your players can see you mean well and want the group to thrive, whereas an email might be misinterpreted in tone, such as scolding, disappointment or accusation.
Read aloud each point and ask for feedback. Take notes. Everything is under consideration at this point, so you are better off writing down comments and ideas to ponder over a night’s sleep than to pressure yourself into decisions right now. Be objective, gather input, clarify or collaborate as needed.
If you find yourself getting defensive, perhaps because one player only knows how to debate instead of collaborate, or because a player is tired and has an unusually sharp tongue this night, rather than retorting or escalating emotions by getting frustrated or defensive, put it back on the group. Ask them what they would prefer. Ask them how they would handle the situation being discussed.
“That’s an interesting point. What do you think a good group guideline for that problem should be, Johnn?” “Yeah, I created that because rules debates were costing game time and bad feelings. If you do not like the proposed guideline, that’s good feedback, thanks. How would you minimize rules debates, Johnn. You freaking rules law power gamer jerk.” Ok, take that last sentence out. It’s bad for morale. :)
Putting issues back into group discussion takes pressure off you, moves your back from against the wall to give you some objective space again, and gets you balanced and facilitating once more.
Another good facilitator role is depersonalizing negative issues. You want to take anything that gets personal and turn it into a thing that carries no fault or blame, but that the whole group becomes responsible for. This helps keeps others from getting defensive or angry. It prevents escalating confrontation. It allows people to stay rational.
For example, someone says, “Johnn is the one who complains about unfairness the most. He always starts the rules debates.” You want to remove Johnn from the picture (always good advice according to my friends) and put the issue out on the table as a thing to discuss together. So you say, “Well, I think we all have our moments, and I know I’ve done it before so it’s easy to fall victim to. What stuff do you find unfair about the game? Let’s make a list and decide what we’re going to do about it right now.”
Denial
In general, people are unaware of their own behaviour, especially the subtle stuff that peeves others, like chewing loudly. Your pair of troublesome players might have no idea how much they are disturbing the group dynamic. And when a group discussion commences, they might be oblivious that folks are actually talking about them, especially if no one calls them out specifically. Further, even if called out for some reason (not recommended, but another player might do it) and a finger points at them, they might still deny all grievances and claim everyone is mistaken. Denial is just that, even when confronted.
“You always argue when someone tries to grapple you, Johnn. You always say the rules are not clear and the DM needs to run those rules differently. It’s the same argument every time and it lasts like 10 minutes and ends up the same way. Give it up, Johnn, it’s just the way it is.” A then Johnn denies having these debates, or deflects by going into a rant about the rules so, in effect, starting the debate all over again proving the person’s point but oblivious to the irony.
You need some proof. Your first bit of proof comes from counting the number of rules complaints recorded in your session feedback. Congrats for doing those, by the way. Not just to track complaints as proof here, but for using them as a tool for ongoing improvement. Huzzah!
Anonymize the feedback and assemble it into a separate document you can reveal if you need the ammunition. How many complaints have there been about this issue? How many players have complained about this issue at one time or another? How many players, on average, complain about this issue each session? How many sessions have experienced the complaints? Those numbers could be sobering.
In addition, present verbatim feedback to the group around the rules issue. Type out what players wrote down. Change things so no one can figure out who wrote what. Seeing 25 comments on a page all regarding rules issues could sway even the worst denial. And even if the guilty players deny in their minds they are the root of the problem, you’ve got some objective stuff out there on the table everybody is now aware of. Everybody should be more attuned to the bad behaviours in the future, and hopefully, more self-aware.
Edit and redistribute
With feedback gathered, make changes as needed and send the new agreement out to everyone. Email here is fine because the tricky discussion has already taken place. Highlight what’s changed so everyone can get a quick understanding of those changes. Ask for final agreement and sign-off from everyone. If more changes are requested, iterate through those until you have a final agreement. Print the agreement out. get everyone to sign each other’s copy to make it feel official and binding. Keep the agreement handy at every session for reference.
Summary of the process
Whew. That sounds like a lot of effort. It boils down to, get group consensus on how to handle the problems you’ve identified. It can’t be you, as the DM, laying down the hammer. It’s a group game of shared responsibility, and everybody must own their part.
In the past, with similar tricky issues, I’ve spoken to the guilty player(s) in private, one on one. Getting on top of it and addressing it is the only way to make this go away.
I’ve heard of groups doing various acrobatics to avoid dealing with the issue head-on, but that’s a terrible way to handle things. It causes more hurt feelings, lost friendships, social backstabbing and stress than handling things directly. For example, a friend recently told me about his group doing a fake shut down just to get rid of a player. A couple weeks later, the group re-formed without telling the player. That’s not good. The player is going to hear about that. How will he react? If oblivious to the tactic, he’ll ask for an invite or just show up. Then you’re back where you started. If he’s aware of the sneaky stunt, he could act out in a number of ways. Best to hold the difficult conversation or process and handle things head-on.
In-game tactics
The things sorted out in the agreement are just theory right now. You need to put them into practice next. First, be sure everybody has the latest group agreement. Keep your copy in your GM binder for reference during the game. Read the agreement before the game to refresh your memory.
Once play starts, enforce the agreement. Put on your referee hat. Stop play or correct play as per the agreement. Do this in a neutral fashion, from the perspective that you are just enforcing what everybody agreed to. Old behaviours will happen. Do not blame players when this happens, because it’s human nature to revert to old patterns until new ones take hold. Interrupt gently, shift things in the correct manner and resume.
Pocket points
My group uses pocket points, thanks to Dave S. who asked they be implemented several years ago. Each player gets a number of poker chips equal to the number of players in attendance for that session. Each is worth +1 to any d20 roll when bequeathed. Players give them to each other as a game and social reward for good play.
You could offer the same to reinforce positive behaviours. A game should be less about what bad stuff to avoid and more about what good stuff to strive toward. The pocket points let players feel rewarded for good play.
You might consider penalty points for a little while. Any time a player breaks a part of the group agreement, you hand out a penalty point. This gives them a -1 to a roll of your choice. When you apply the -1 you take the point back, the player having paid for their crime.
Apply penalty points for minor rolls at first. The points are more of a group and player reminder when bequeathed, and less about the penalty. There should be a wee bit of short embarrassment when receiving a penalty point, and this should be enough to change behaviour. That’s the true benefit of the penalty points – the social penalty is experienced right at the time of the bad behaviour. That’s the best way to change bad habits.
The penalty points only work if you have universal understanding of expected behaviours and gameplay. That is the benefit of all the work generating a group agreement. You cannot apply penalty points or remonstrations out of the blue. Players need to know what’s expected of them up front so they have a chance for giving feedback and then complying once group agreement has been reached.
Timeouts
When things get heated, call a timeout. Give the emotional player(s) a short break. Ask them to walk away from the table, go outside and take a couple of deep breaths. It is important they leave the table, else they could get sullen and destroy game atmosphere.
Use the break time yourself, if desired, or use it to handle things for which the player on break can miss, such as accounting, a quick character audit or cleaning up the game area in preparation for the next encounter.
DO NOT talk about the player or his character while the player is away gathering himself. It’s insidious to gossip, the player is not there to defend himself, and if the player should overhear you will ruin the relationship. If someone starts – “Johnn sure was being a jerk.” – intervene immediately. “Let’s stay on task here, people. Nobody talks about anyone while they’re away from the table.”
If things get tricky for you, call a timeout on yourself. Not only can you use the fresh air and healthy deep breaths to collect yourself, but you show everyone in the group these little breaks are ok and not personal. You lead by example.
As a subtle measure, put a sign in the break area: Remember games are about having fun. You are hanging out with friends. Enjoy. :)
Kick them out
Worst case, you ask the player to quit the group. Life is too short to have your regular fun ruined. With between seven and eleven players, the group will not suffer if a player leaves, in general. You might have mitigating circumstances, such as a disruptive player being a close relative or spouse or someone you just can’t kick out. In that case, a one-on-one is best, with regular follow-ups until the problem’s fixed.
Otherwise, at your call, kick the offending player out between sessions, or issue them a warning. There are seven to eleven others who play, including yourself, and one or two players cannot ruin the fun for all.
Mike’s answer:
I have to admit that I have nothing to add to Johnn’s excellent answer!
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
September 5th, 2011 at 8:10 am
Wow, you rendered MIKE speechless! That has to be worth some bonus XP. ;}
I have a similar philosophy with a much simpler table procedure. I call it, “State your case, ONCE.”
Arguments slow down the game, so I don’t allow them. But I also want to listen to my players — nobody likes to be ignored or shut down, and, well, sometimes they’re right. Since an argument is characterized by back-and-forth interaction (see Cleese, John et. al., “This Is Not An Argument,” BBC1, 1972), I don’t debate during the game. I tell players that they may make a case for a different ruling or interpretation, but they only get one chance to explain their idea, after which I will make a decision.
If the player still disagrees with the decision I will happily discuss it after the game, since I DO want to get the rules right. XP may change hands if I bungled something badly. But any player who wants to argue during a session is behaving selfishly; they need to have more trust in the GM to deliver a good overall experience even if there is an occasional rules mistake.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:14 am
This still seems a bit like power-tripping GM to me.
If a player thinks a ruling is wrong, ask them once what they think the ruling should be, then, as a twist, unless it impacts another player: Go with it.
Unless you want to start an employer/employee style relationship with people for recreation: let it go. Separate the roles of arbiter of the rules and arbiter of the setting. GM controls setting, Players control PC’s and chill the fark out about rules arguments.
It takes two to argue, if you as a GM are arguing with a player and don’t wish to, just concede and BAM! the argument is settled . If the other player cares enough to kavitch then go with their ruling. If you care equally enough to also kavitch then 1.) understand you are also rules lawyering 2.) just roll off between interested parties. The winner of the roll gets to issue the ruling.
Zzarchov recently posted..An honest question about getting reviews
September 5th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Why not just hand the players as many XP as they want, Zzarchov? That’s determined by the rules, as well. Under the prescription you offer, the GM is nothing but a doormat, buckling at the slightest hint of a stiff breeze.
Being firm about the rules doesn’t require arguement, as Will Points out. But the GM also has a responsibility to keep the game moving, and to ensure that everyone is having fun; for anyone who isn’t participating, arguements are embarresing at best and irritating at worst. So if a player wants to debate the rules, they should only get one chance; but humans make mistakes, so the GM should always be willing to listen. These are conflicting objectives, and that automatically means that the GM has to compromise between total willingness to listen to discussion and determination to make a ruling and move on. Where that balance lies is up to the individual, but caving in completely will satisfy no-one.
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 5th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
There is a difference between “GMs make mistakes so they should listen” and “two players constantly argue rules in the games (not just the one DM’s) they play in and disrupt everyone’s experience.
Don’t get me wrong, every last bit of advice mentioned above is useful and clearly well thought out — I don’t want to say anything bad about it. One important part of the conversation really did just get glossed over though… the poster made mention of talking to just the problem players — outside of game and politely — as an option, but it seems to me (and this is just one opinion) that talking to the offending players is the place to start. Confront the issue directly with the persons in question and deal directly with them instead of taking the step of creating a gaming constitution that it appears the (vast) majority of the players in the group don’t need (and probably don’t want to deal with since it likely eats into playing time, potentially several times).
And that’s really the point. Gaming is supposed to be fun, and a side thing, not a job. If the majority of your group can get along and play nice and two people are screwing it up for everyone, ask them to correct course and if they refuse to, ask them to move on.
It might hurt to ask a friend not to be in a game, but if you’ve done your part, been a friend, explained the situation, listened to their side, and the group is (as it seems) that frustrated, then the two arguers are making a choice that is bad for the group… let them leave.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Great comments, everyone!
I agree that gaming is not a job. I also agree with working directly with what at first appears to be the cause – the problematic behaviour.
Johnn recently posted..8 Ways to Make Game World Managhement Easy
September 5th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@Mike
If the player wants more XP, go for it. Write down whatever you feel you need to enjoy your game.
You feel you need a +1 sword with your Paladin to have fun, write it down as starting equipment then move on.
You want to cheat on a die roll? I am not going to police you, I don’t care.
If you want to cheat in a co-operative game, go for it. I am not going to stop the fun for everyone else to call you on it for some sense of “order” or “control”. I view it as akin to putting in cheat codes on a co-op video game. If you want to put on god mode for yourself, I don’t care.
Zzarchov recently posted..The Star Diamond: A Lovecraftian entity
September 5th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
@Zzarchov: It’s an interesting and novel approach, I must say – and you advocate it well. My biggest problem with the approach is that it forces the same choice on everyone else – the alternative is to become a fifth wheel at the gaming table. If one player switches on God Mode then the rest either do the same or might as well not bother turning up.
No one person has the right to hold everyone else’s fun, hostage. Not the GM and not a player.
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 5th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
@Zzarchov
You said, “If a player thinks a ruling is wrong, ask them once what they think the ruling should be, then, as a twist, unless it impacts another player: Go with it.”
However, the problem with all your suggestions in the last post is that every one of them impacts another player. If I was playing in that game, giving another player an unfair advantage impacts my enjoyment of the game (breaking the rules is by definition unfair, and each item you listed is breaking the game rules in the games I play).
If, in your games, every player does what they wish and you all have fun, more power to you.
But in my games, and in any games I’ve played in, the GM is there to arbitrate the game, both rules and setting.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Just as a counterpoint – I have just recalled being told of another GM’s campaign where he let the players have anything they wanted at the time of character generation (but no more than one of anything) on the understanding that once they were actually playing there would be nothing more. The result was that they were immediately capable of dealing with the most powerful threats in the game world, albiet with a razor-thin margin of safety early on – and that as the survivors progressed in abilities, their magical “support mechanisms” were slowly eroded. In effect, a high-level campaign where the enemies don’t have to get tougher for the battles, quests, and challenges to become mor difficult. So, to that limited extent, there can be something worth considering in Zzarchov’s approach.
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 6th, 2011 at 6:20 am
When dealing with players challenging the GM on game calls, remember where the power of the GM comes from when running a game. They are called the Games Master because the primary form of power is expertise is the game – not just the rules and mechanics, but the setting, the scenario, and the specific factors pertaining to the situation at hand which the players may not know.
While players will generally want their character’s to succeed at everything, and may argue this fact, it is the GM’s job to balance this desire with the needs of the game and provide the challenge for the players. That is why they are running the game. The GM is always in the position of knowing more, even if they don’t want to reveal this extra information for spoiling the game for others.
When it comes to arguing game calls, it’s players being back seat GMs who are unwilling to cede power to the GM over control of their character. The argument and issues are always the result of a larger power struggle at the table. This is why it is normally the same players raising the arguments. They need to be able to cede control and learn to trust the GM’s expertise in the game.
Adding to the game is one thing: suggesting alternatives for results isn’t classed as arguing, and most GMs are grateful for the input. But if the GM says something it’s generally for a reason for the game, and arguing means arguing against the game.
It’s a classic power struggle in sociology – individual agency versus structure, and represents our individual desire to shape our own destinies. While most GMs allow a certain degree of freedom – after all, certain campaigns are often defined with certain limits to begin with – the need to rebel against such limits to express our own agency and identity within certain structures are well documented, and it stands to reason that such issues are also projected into roleplaying games.
My general approach is the “I am the GM” approach – it’s simple and straight forward, and takes no prisoners. There are no arguments. I don’t mind input and suggestions, but when I make a ruling it is for the game, and it sticks until such time as I change change it, because I am the GM. There is always Rule -1 for those who disagree. I find this frees up time for the game, although it has led to my trademark GM Statement of Authority “Shut the f**k up ™!” – yes, I even say the “(tm)”…
Heys, I’m a good and funny GM, I don’t have to be polite as well, especially when I’m getting bored and annoyed… but when they GM, they do it right back, and I just smirk, and get right back in the game, because that’s what’s GMing is about – controlling the game. If that means dealing with unruly players who want to challenge the GM for control, so be it. The players only control the PCs. That how it works. If you don’t like it – there’s always Rule -1.
September 6th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Just as an experiment to better your own play style.
One of these times, try separating out the roles of Setting Management and Rules Arbiter. Nominate a player at the table, hell one of the “Rules Lawyer” types if you have one as the rules arbiter.
Trying playing a few (ie more than one game) that way. If nothing else the change of pace will improve your abilities as a GM.
Zzarchov recently posted..The Star Diamond: A Lovecraftian entity
September 6th, 2011 at 9:47 am
@Zzachov: In theory, that would be a very worthwhile experience – but the two roles are not that easily seperated. Before you can properly arbitrate the rules, you have to have all the pertinent facts regarding a situation – and it will be the case quite regularly that the role of Setting Manager demands that information be concealed. Telling the players what spells and equipment an enemy is using in combat, announcing the results of a perception/spot check before such a check can be made because one of the players is acting as Rule arbiter, the list is almost endless. And that totally excludes any possibility that the player interpreting the rules might be biased either in his own favour or of the players in general. What’s more, if the timing is wrong, the rules that are t be arbitrated can encourage a feeling of the game being an “us vs the GM” whereas your intention
(I think) is to argue the opposite – if the players get a hint that the GM is arranging game circumstances to exploit their charcacter’s vulnerabilities, for example.
The rules are general principles and guidance, to be arbitrated in light of the circumstances within the game. Handing the role of Rules Arbiter over to a player is problematic at best and encouraging of dogma and rules lawyering at worst.
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 6th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
@Mike
Could the same not be said of the GM? If the players must trust the GM to act fairly (and not try to win or protect his favoured NPC’s, see Elminster), should the GM not trust his players to act fairly?
Trust the players not to meta-game if they understand they failed a spot check. The first game might end with them having “glee” at their new power, but after a game or two it dies off.
Letting players decide how their die roll ends if they care to cheat may produce a few too many 20’s in the first few games, but pretty quickly the realization that they are only cheating themselves kicks in.
If nothing else, it will improve your GMing ability to play a few games with one less tool in the toolbox. Likewise leaving the setting to someone else and only focusing on rules arbitration for a few games will strengthen that muscle as well.
Zzarchov recently posted..The Star Diamond: A Lovecraftian entity
September 6th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
@Mike and ZZarchov – Actually, the difference between rules arbiter and setting manager is basically the difference between how the GM manifests their power in the game. The rules arbiter aspect of GM control and power refers strictly to the use of authority to run the game with regard to the rules. With the GM’s ability to Rule 0 the rules as needed by the game, it takes a great deal of time to defer this authority to someone else in any meaningful way – but it is possible. In theory, this aspect of power comes not from the GM, but from his ability to interpret in implement the rules to the situation at hand. The GM isn’t master of the game – but the agent by which the game comes from the GM’s guide to the table. This is important, and a key part of why rules debates happen, because in many cases, some players feel that the GM doesn’t necessarily matter when they are using authority rather than expertise, because anybody else can do the job. Thus, it is easy to question and challenge authority, because in effect anybody can be the GM. There’s nothing really stopping the GM from being a PC at the table and all players working together to GM when using this style of GMing. It is only when it is understood that the GM is running the game through their expertise, rather than through authority, that you can avoid such issues. It means going above and beyond the rules of simple books – there is no possibilities of rules arbiters and setting managers, because that role is the GM. If someone else is sharing that role, they are co-GMing. It is that simple.
September 6th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
[…] Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls (campaignmastery.com) […]
September 6th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
@Zzarchov: It’s not a case of trusting or distrusting the players, it’s a case of preserving the element of surprise. It’s my experience that while some people like to skim ahead to the end of the book or the chapter before reading it, most people find that knowing the ending in advance impedes their enjoyment. And, once again, you can’t break the seal of secrecy for just one player, once it is broken it is broken for everyone. Why should everyone else’s enjoyment be hostage to one player?
@Da’Vane: It took several readings to pin down the reason your comment didn’t sound quite right to me; eventually, I found it in the phrase “The GM isn’t master of the game – but the agent by which the game comes from the GM’s guide to the table”. I don’t see the game as coming from the GM’s guide at all – the game comes from the campaign setting and events within the game; the GM’s guide and all the rules contained both within it and elsewhere exist (a) to translate those events into unbiased game mechanics; (b) to act as a checklist for content, so that verisimilitude is not impaired by the absence of something that would logically be present; and (c) as a source of inspiration and advice on how to go about creating a campaign setting and placing adventures within it. It follows that a GM is never simply using authority, he is always using authority within the context of his expertise in the campaign setting and the events transpiring within that campaign setting. If the players were in a position to know ALL the pertinent details, then the special condition of that expertise no longer obtains, and only then is the GM reduced purely to the role of Arbiter – at which point, you are quite correct, any of the players could take on that role.
It’s all a question of how much the GM exists to stimulate the adventure, create the encounters, know what’s going on, and how it relates to a thousand-and-one other things that are also transpiring within the game. If the GM is nothing more than an automated mouthpieces for the rules, providing no input and letting the players decide where they are going and what they are doing, then the rest of your arguement is valid. This is very much the way things occur in a computer RPG – the player tells the computer what they are doing and the computerised “GM” responds with the consequences; everything is either pre-scripted or reactive, and the world is dead except in the area immediately surrounding the PC(s).
When playing in a tabletop setting, there is no need for the GM to be so mechanical. The strengths of such a method of gaming are flexibility and the ability to move beyond the preprogrammed script. If the GM does not confining himself merely to the role of an automaton behind the GM screen, he can exploit those strengths to produce a better game for the participants.
The alternative is Zork (with added bells and whistles).
But the fuzziness of possible future events comes at a price – situations that aren’t covered by the rules, rules that can’t possibly take everything that is possible into account, complex situations that can’t be reduced to a simple ‘roll X to succeed’.
The GM is as much information manager and databank concerning the game as he is an arbiter of the rules, and the rules must be secondary (because they are, by definition, incomplete and incapable of ever being complete) to what is actually occurring in any given situation.
Which brings me back to the point that I made to Zzarchov at the start of this comment.
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 6th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
@Mike
Unfortunately you’re wrong about spoilers. And there is proof :P
http://www.cbc.ca/books/2011/08/do-you-like-book-spoilers.html
and in more detail here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adoree-durayappah-mapp-mba/spoiler-paradox_b_933261.html
So … all this time we thought we didn’t want to know the end of the story, when apparently we prefer to.
September 7th, 2011 at 3:18 am
Having looked at your referances, I disagree. For one thing, they are both citing the same body of research, and that is limited to one set of 12 stories. The survey at the bottom of the first link gives completely contrary results: 13.19% sought out spoilers, 15.52% tolerated spoilers but didn’t go looking for them, and 67.24% hated knowing the ending. Too much soup, not enough meat – not what I would call conclusive.
September 7th, 2011 at 6:47 am
I think you are over-estimating how much having other people handle rules questions impacts your ability to maintain surprise.
They are very easy to keep separate. I would highly recommend you try breaking the roles in two and playing that way for a bit. Forcing you to come at issues in another way will increase you ability to create suspense and mystery without being the final call on rules. No different than how a PC can do the same to you.
Zzarchov recently posted..The Star Diamond: A Lovecraftian entity
September 7th, 2011 at 8:11 am
“No different than how a PC can do the same to you.” – This makes zero sense to me, I don’t know what you are trying to say.
As to the question of over-estimating, all I have as a basis is the number of times I have to take into account facts about the situation that the PCs don’t yet know – and that’s the case 40-60% of the time. And the only time that I don’t fully inform the players of these facts without prompting or requiring die rolls is when the information is significant or potentially significant to their decision-making process.
You are also making assumptions about how I handle the question in my games. I’m quite happy to have players look up the rules for me, but I then interpret them and their relevance to the situation. If they think I’ve overlooked something pertinent, they are quite welcome to point it out – nine times out of ten, it’s actually a factor that I have actually taken into consideration but haven’t mentioned to the players for one reason or another. Quite often – at least 70% of the time – when they attempt to interpret the rules, they make unwarranted assumptions about the situation. That’s the basis for my estimate – the frequency with which I have relevant information that they don’t.
Mike recently posted..Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls
September 7th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Having played it both ways, I would strongly suggest you just give it a try. If nothing else it will strengthen your abilities, like any other exercise it is good to give yourself a handicap from time to time to improve.
If you constantly have situation’s appear (40% minimum by your words) where you can’t understand the ruling without taking into account information the PC’s do not and cannot have, you will give the impression you are just making it up as you go. Incorrect or not, that is the impression one gets. In a group dynamic this kind of hidden logic leads to charges (often unspoken) of favouratism. Whole schools of management advice how to handle it because it ALWAYS happens, even when no favouratism is occurring.
Much of the rules lawyering you are experiencing might actually be people upset about favouratism and being passive aggressive about it. Is it not funny how Rules Lawyers and Nepotism Prone GM’s are the main complaints by GM’s and Players respectively?
Without getting into a tonne of specifics (which can be done, but at that point you are undergoing training on how to manage a setting without being the referee), you can improve upon this model. The easiest way to do that is to give yourself a handicap, learn to master that style and then blend what is best about both.
There is no reason not to spend 3 or 4 games trying such a scenario and seeing how you can use the experience to improve upon your game (which is never perfect, it can always be improved)
Zzarchov recently posted..The Star Diamond: A Lovecraftian entity
September 7th, 2011 at 11:03 am
This is good advice, especially on not talking about other players when they are not around. Being a GM is not an easy position. A GM who ensures there is balance and fairness acquires the most respect from gamers.
Henry recently posted..how to flirt with a girl
September 7th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
What Rules Lawyering? Nor do I give the appearance to my players of making it up as I go along. On the contrary, my players are used to discovering facts at a later time that explain the rulings that I have made previously. They treat otherwise inexplicable rulings as being what they are:- clues to the information they don’t have. You appear to have me confused with the person who wrote in, asking for help!
Mike recently posted..Forging Unexpected Connections: Putting PC Dossiers To Work
September 9th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
[…] Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls (campaignmastery.com) […]
September 9th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
[…] Items Belong to Somebody Dungeon Doodles & a CrossHatching Tutorial Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls time as a pc resource Campus Maps are Solid […]
September 10th, 2011 at 2:09 am
@ zzarchov “Nominate a player at the table, hell one of the “Rules Lawyer” types if you have one as the rules arbiter.”
In a previous long-term game (around 10 years) one of the players worked like this for me. He wasn’t a ‘rules lawyer’ as we would recognise – in fact far from it – but was just very, very good at storing the rules in his cavernous brain.
I readily admitted that I couldn’t do that and indeed didn’t wish to; I treat all my games as stories that the players are part of and would much rather they play/work that way too. Mark, the font of knowledge, acted as a buffer between my essential ‘rules ineptitude’ – how many times DID I have to look up how overcoming spell resistance works? – and the questions of the other players. Disagreements occured, disputes didn’t. We had a fantastic set of in-house variations which suited us all in terms of moving story forward rather than finding ourselves slaves to the system AND it meant my desire to allow occasional oddities and exceptions, such as those that occur in any action or adventure film where you know the hero/heroine can’t possibly die, could happen as I bent that same system to suit us.
I also use a three-minute egg timer for people putting their point forward. More recently, whilst I can think of no other redeeming quality to the programme, I have used the X-Factor-style ‘raised X’ idea for other PCs to let a beginning-to-bore player know they’ve reached their limit. When more than half have raised their X, that’s it! Repeat offenders often get very short shrift from their peers.
Cheers!
September 10th, 2011 at 7:44 am
I am unfamiliar with the “raised X” system – could you expand on it a bit?
September 11th, 2011 at 2:53 am
Are you familiar with the talent show, the “X-Factor”? I ask this seriously because I hope you’ve avoided it! (Or is this “Britain/America/A Country’s Got talent” – I may have chosen the wrong programme)
Anyway, the one thing I’ve seen in which ever it is is that the judges each use a huge electronic “X” t get rid of the worst of the contestants. In the past, I’ve given each player an A5 red “X” to raise when they have had enough of a discussion. When more than half the players have raised theirs, the discussion ends. I still had the final decision if needs be, but usually the players regulated themselves. It became a great exercise in making salient points in a structured and constructive way rather than just disagreeing.
September 11th, 2011 at 5:27 am
@Stephen: I’ve avoided most seasons of the Australian version, the first had nothing like that. I have no idea whether or not the red “X” is a local programming element or part of the overall format – experience in comparing Australian Idol with American Idol suggests it could be either.
Mike recently posted..Theme vs Style vs Genre: Crafting Anniversary Special Adventures
September 11th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Well, wherever it’s from, it worked for us. There were six players in the group, so if anyone wanted to press a disagreement, they had five others to keep on-side. the moment the first “X” went up, the person making their point knew they had to work a little harder. The second “X” – well , the end was near. And when the third “X” appeared, that was it. Maybe red cards would work in the same way. Thankfully we very rarely needed it, but it kept the timing of these types of situation fairly light.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
[…] Ask The GMs: How to Deal with Players Who Disagree with Game Calls (campaignmastery.com) […]
October 14th, 2011 at 7:07 am
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, You and the other DM’s have given me a lot of solid advice, wish me luck =)
January 14th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
This article has now been translated into French Along with some of the comments, where it will hopefully help many more GMs, thanks to PTGPTB http://ptgptb.fr/comment-gerer-les-joueurs-qui-refusent-les-decisions-du-mj :)
Mike Bourke recently posted..Random Encounter Tables – my old-school way