"Are you trying to follow all the rules? You don't have to do that—D&D is a really simple game. Whenever you run into some kind of problem, just call things as you see them ... and everything will be all right."
This is such bad advice. Yet I hear it constantly. I shudder, thinking what it must be like to run in the games these people run.
The opinions of your players are ... mm ... tricky. The phrase, "something you don't know how to adjudicate" is like my giving directions to dinner guests by saying, "I live in North America." Just exactly how is an answer "hashed out"? Wouldn't that be useful information—rather than saying it's possible?"
Okay. Let's get into that. How do you hash out a fair answer, after asking the player's opinion? Ready?
Understand please that this is how I resolve disputes from the position of knowing what the rules are. The rules are your friends; they are the gavel you hold in your hand while trying to maintain order. So long as its understood that everyone is going to follow the rules, the DM included; and so long as cooperation is the agenda, and not personal selfishness; these being the subjects of the last two posts; then the rules are a pathway to legitimacy and cooperation. Get to know the rules and learn how to apply them.
Your first order of business as a DM in resolving disputes is to do it before they start. This is done by finding rules in the books that either don't make sense, are biased towards a sort of game play you don't want in your campaign or might be interpreted in a bad way due to the language being used. Whenever possible, don't throw out the rule's text altogether; the more of the original text you retain, the more any change you make will look like a legitimate adjustment and not an act of arbitrary abuse. Hm. An example, yeah?
The original text from the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide says this about Gaining Proficiency Levels:
"Experience points are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. Just because Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieves' Guild has managed to acquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers the Footpad."
The caps are Gygax's. Now, let's say we disagree with the rule at our game table. Gygax's system was designed to tax player's wealth by forcing them to pay ludicrous sums to be "trained" to be a higher level; but we've decided that we're fine with exactly the opposite of what's said above.
In our list of house rules, we could merely write, "When a player character accumulates enough experience, they automatically go up a level." Simple, succinct, clear. But ... if our players are stalwart by the rules people, we can mess with their heads a little by writing out,
"Experience points are an indicator of the character's greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS AUTOMATIC. When Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieves' Guild manages to acquire 1,251 experience points, it means that she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers the Footpad."
Written that way, even a long-time savvy player whose memorized the books will pause and say, "Wait a minute. Did Gygax write that?"
"No," we say. "I adjusted it to fit with my system. Let's move on." A, it proves you've read the rule and B, you've already set the standard for how it now works in your world. The rules lawyer can't argue that this is not what the rule says; we've already demonstrated that and that we don't agree with it. Quad erat demonstrandum.
This grants power where it comes to arbitrating rules at the table; though, of course, you must know the rule and you must take the time to properly correct it. Incidentally, I chose the rule at random, by opening my DMG and reading under the first heading on that page (86).
You can make your point even firmer by adding examples of situations where the rule proved its worth, or even specifically when the players agreed to the change. Dates have remarkable value in these disputes. Admittedly, I don't do this—but if you read a random text on dispute resolution, such as the one Wikipedia provides—you will find an ironclad template on how to back players (and your own bad habits) back on their heels. I'm using it as a guideline for this post.
For example, it says on the page, "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia." That instantly translates into the DM's guidebook as, "Talking to the PARTY is not a mere formality; it is integral to running the game." Arguing with the players or using your position as leverage will not gain sympathy for your point of view, will demonstrate your bad faith towards the players and will show that you have no interest in their opinions. This sort of disrespect will not smooth things out later in your game's play and soon you will find yourself without friends at the table, or any players at all.
Solid advice flat out rewritten from the Wikipedia page.
The key to dispute resolution between you and your players depends on what you believe you're trying to resolve. The text from 4th Edition gives the impression that the result wanted (suggested by telling us we don't need to know all the rules) is to encourage DMs they don't look like fools if they ask for help, particularly by not worrying about their authority if they give into the player's opinions. I apologize to those who feel this is a great way to run a game, but it really isn't.
If I know the rules, then I really DO know how to adjudicate something the player does. This would seem a rational approach. Know More Than The Player. Duh. "Fair" ought to be based on the rules, the believability of the action, the natural laws of the campaign and the manner in which it compromises the spirit of the game. I've said again and again: if the spirit of the game is, in the minds of the players and the DM, is based on whatever is randomly made up by the players and all the other rules bend to that object, then of course every dispute settlement is going to be arbitrary and unfounded. On the other hand, if the spirit is to challenge the player to adjust the player's tactics based on hard physical and defined limitations in the character's power, THEN the resolution is based on "Can this be physically done" and "Do the rules state that its possible." Again, an example.
As a halfling standing in front of a 7 ft. tall orc, having rolled initiative against said orc, I tell you I'm going to climb up the orc's leg and stab the orc in the back. What do I roll?
If you're trying to think of what feat applies to that situation, this is one of those moments when I wish I could punch people through the internet.
Is it physically possible? Perhaps, if the orc were a statue, and not actively defending itself, and is unable to kick its leg in the fraction of a second, and if it doesn't jump back as the halfing runs towards him, and if my halfling doesn't actually sacrifice my initiative by abandoning my weapon because I need both hands to climb, well, then, sure ... so long as the game is taking place in fucking fantasy land.
Which is, of course, the argument rendered. "Hey! It is fantasy land!" I have to stop and rub my head a moment. Yes, if this is toddler fantasy land, or Mickey Mouse fantasy land, sure, why not, fill your boots—but then, why go for such a low bar? "I pick up the bartender and the stove and slap the orc between them both. Obviously I hit, because this is fantasy land. How much damage does the orc take?"
My fantasy role-playing game is based on a more substantive set of rules, which argues that NO, it isn't physically possible for you to climb a self-aware defending orc, no matter how small you are, and NO, there is no feat that allows that because I don't incorporate ridiculous unbelievable nonsense into my game rules.
Oh, wait. That was me "using my position as leverage," wasn't it? That's not going to get me sympathy as a DM. That's going to demonstrate my bad faith towards the player who wants to climb the orc. That's bad for dispute resolution, isn't it? Yes, it surely is.
Thing is.
One of the qualifiers for dispute resolution is that the other side comes into the negotiation with a reasonable expectation. When you approach your boss for a raise, you don't say, "I think I deserve a hundred dollars more an hour. Let's negotiate." Now, in your sweet little heart, you may be thinking that 35 cents more is fine with you, and you're just taking a hard bargaining position, but in fact you're being tremendously insulting thinking your boss will find your opening position appropriate. Even if you think it's a joke, it's STILL inappropriate; money and business are NOT things appropriately joked about. If I were your boss and you opened a real negotiation this way, I would be thinking, "Why do I keep this idiot on my payroll?"
Player: "Can I climb the orc's leg and stab him in the back?"
Me: "Do you intend to take this game seriously?"
There's our bargaining positions. I'm pretty damned rock solid on my position, because I've run the game for 40 years and I have an expectation that people will approach the game and my version of it respecting the rules and the hard boundaries they provide. The player, on the other hand, invented this nonsensical plan about 30 seconds ago; I'm fairly sure the player isn't invested in it, but if I'm wrong, well, then the player isn't intending to take my game seriously. Seems pretty obvious. Therefore, I can't say I care to have the player in the game at all.
That's how I maintain my GOOD FAITH with the players who are there to take the game seriously.
Sigh.
This probably didn't help. It's hard to talk about conflict resolution in text, and harder still without being able to address specific questions being asked by specific people. Your game world is your business; and the spirit of your game as well. I like a game where everyone plays the same rules and to which the same standards apply to everyone. Then, everyone knows what to expect, everyone knows what the limitations are, everyone understanding that getting to do "cool things" requires levelling up and acquiring additional abilities and no one thinks they can skirt the rules with made-up metaphysical unearned self-empowering nonsense. And the key there is "unearned." You've got to learn to kill the orc the hard way before you get to kill them easily.
This series continues with What the ...
