Dealing with an argumentative player?

[arouetta]

I've recently had to change the players in my group, and one particular person has been in the last two games. New to the system, GM of another system. In both games, he didn't just question a GM call, he vigorously argued against me. I spoke with other players afterwards, and they were in shock of his behavior.

They weren't unfair calls, in my opinion. In the first game, he asked if the tracks leading into a trapdoor or out of a trapdoor were newer. I said he needed to roll Track Humanoids to tell. He argued that he would just be able to tell simply because he had the skill and would be able to see how the dirt was layered. In the second game, he failed a Horror Factor roll. I told him he was afraid of the Wolfen character. He said that because of his character concept, he reacted to things less strongly and therefore would be only slightly disquieted. I said no, he failed, he is afraid, play it out. (He missed it by a fair amount.) In both cases, when I upheld my original call, he went back and forth a few rounds instead of accepting it.

I'm always open to a reasonable disagreement and have reversed calls in the past when presented with a logical argument. I have stopped a game upon occasion to consult with two other GMs of the Palladium system to make sure I was making a right call. In the above cases though, the rules seemed clearcut (there's a reason for percentages and there's a reason Wolfen have a horror factor) and the only argument was he had a different opinion of how things should be, not a rule or precedent or theoretical physics to the contrary.

I've never had a player like him. I've GM'ed a few years, but I don't consider myself experienced since it has always been with friends outside the game and there are social boundaries that are respected. Now for the first time I am GMing for relative strangers. And I cannot, I refuse to, lose control of my table. So I am appealing to the more experienced GMs here on the boards, how do I maintain control and respect? How can I nip the open arguing in the bud?

[Marrowlight]

Take him aside as soon as possible, and say something along the lines of "I understand that each new group or GM brings their own dynamic to the table, but in the games I run, while I appreciate people passionate about playing their character, I am going to use rolls to determine outcomes in situations where I feel they are appropriate. This isn't a matter open for debate...if you have genuine concerns about it in game, feel free to slip me a piece of paper with them on it, and otherwise save them for after the game, when they won't break the flow for everyone else. Thanks, and I hope you decide to give this a try and stay with us - but if this style isn't going to work for you, I understand, and wish you a good day."

Which is about as candy coated and pleasant a version of how I'd handle it as I can put down on screen.



Alternatively...."My game, not yours. Deal with it, or get out. Peace."

[Natasha]

I am suspicious of Game Masters who demand control. If the players respect the Game Master, then control is not even a talking point—it just follows naturally. Respect is often not simply granted but must be earned. Respect is also a two-way street.

Your problem could profit from an one-on-one conversation since some people do like to show off in front of others, so you may get a more honest assessment of the player. But all that is likely to happen is you each repeat your cases and nothing is resolved.

My advice is to give a little, perhaps even more than you are comfortable with. It might feel like you are losing control but disarming with smiles is still disarmament. We are not actually giving up any control by empowering players. Too often Game Masters think of control in terms of “my way or the highway” but that seems to me to be rather amateurish.

If you find he never gives back, bring it up. Point out the ground you have given and say that it is fair he reciprocates. If he still refuses or is still problematic, perhaps having the entire group point out his disruptions could be profitable. Another problem is that players keep their mouths shut while a disruptive player and a Game Master grapple with each other. This tends to validate the disruptive behaviour.

If after that there is no positive developments, then it is almost certainly time to part ways with the player.

[Marrowlight]

Too often Game Masters think of control in terms of “my way or the highway” but that seems to me to be rather amateurish.

(as an addendum, I probably would've offered different advice with a new player who was just a player; but with a new player who is used to being GM, you give an inch, they take a mile, end of story, imo)

[Natasha]

That was one sentence in a paragraph of several paragraphs.

[Damian Magecraft]

You said the player is a GM of another system...
Then your answer is simple....
"This is not game xyz"
If the player continues to argue ask them this...
"Who is the GM ? Me or You?"
What you have described is the first volleys in a control war.
If you do not establish your control of the setting now you will be at the mercy of this disruptive player.

[Natasha]

Or it is the manifestation of play style differences which can be overcome without whipping out sledge hammers and shouting "go".

[Marrowlight]

That was one sentence in a paragraph of several paragraphs.

It was the only one worth emoticon'ing over! <3

[Damian Magecraft]

Or it is the manifestation of play style differences which can be overcome without whipping out sledge hammers and shouting "go".

By arguing two very simple rule calls the player has already established the hammers are needed.

[MaxxSterling]

Don't run for them. Why bother dealing with people like this? Just eject them. Do you want me to come to your game and deal with them?

[Natasha]

Or it is the manifestation of play style differences which can be overcome without whipping out sledge hammers and shouting "go".

By arguing two very simple rule calls the player has already established the hammers are needed.

I'm sympathetic on the first and unsure of the second without knowing the argument. I've dealt with such people...without hammers. They're not necessary between adults.

[Natasha]

That was one sentence in a paragraph of several paragraphs.

It was the only one worth emoticon'ing over! <3

Oh

[Damian Magecraft]

Or it is the manifestation of play style differences which can be overcome without whipping out sledge hammers and shouting "go".

By arguing two very simple rule calls the player has already established the hammers are needed.

I'm sympathetic on the first and unsure of the second without knowing the argument. I've dealt with such people...without hammers. They're not necessary between adults.

And my experiences have shown me that the very act of challenging the GM in public and as vocally as the player did warrants only one kind of response.
A vocal and very public verbal slap down.
If a challenge is made during game it must be addressed in the same venue or no resolution will last.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Well, there are some that I partially agree with, and some responses I partially disagree with. Instead of doing a bunch of quoting, I'm going to start my response from the very beginning.

First, as others said, if you give an inch, he's going to take a mile. Hell, probably 10 miles. Either A, he's simply testing the boundries, trying to see if he can run all over you and run the game from the player side; B, he's a control freak, and even as a player feels he must be the one in power; or C, he's just an all around poke. (My opinion is that it's probably a mix of all those things, and I'm willing to bet that when he GMs, he railroads, or at least tries to)

My suggestion is multi-stepped
1) Take him aside, and speak talk to him. Point out exactly what he's doing. Since he GMs another game, ask him point blank if he would accept someone doing that to HIM. If he says he would (which I doubt, if he's honest) "Well, I won't. If you have a problem with one of my calls, speak to me AFTER the game, unless it's some outrageous horrible thing that is going to obliterate the game. At the MOST, when we take a bathroom or smoke break, speak to me then."

2) If that doesn't work, and he keeps it up, verbally slap him down, in front of the others. "I made the call. And as I discussed with you already, this is NOT the way to handle it. One more word about it during the game, and I can either cut your experience in half for the night, or you can pack your stuff and leave. Now, shall we continue?"

3) Invite him to not return.

I'm always open to a reasonable disagreement and have reversed calls in the past when presented with a logical argument. I have stopped a game upon occasion to consult with two other GMs of the Palladium system to make sure I was making a right call.

While I understand that may be your style, please allow me to make a suggestion- don't let ANYONE do it during the game. As above, after the game, or during a break, have the player with an issue pull you aside and speak to you. If they convince you that it should have happened differently, either let everyone know, and have it take effect once you resume, or, if it's going to be too difficult to rewrite time, explain to the player that next time, you will do it that way, but this time, it's too far gone, and you will compensate him/her with 500-1000 experience, depending on the severity of the change.

And I cannot, I refuse to, lose control of my table.

I vehemetly (and I KNOW I spelled that wrong) disagree with the person who said to "give a little". The simple fact is, YOU are running the game. Unless you're deviating a million miles from the rules, and not informing players of changes beforehand, or being completely inconsistent, then the argument is invalid. Like I said before- during the game is NOT time to stop and argue. Especially if it's stuff like his OPINION or "character concept". If that was the case, I have a character concept that involves having a regenerating magical forcefield with 1000000 SDC (or MDC based on setting) and perfectly covers me... you see, it's part of the CONCEPT. It's all right there in his backstory. Argument invalid, right?

[Natasha]

Or it is the manifestation of play style differences which can be overcome without whipping out sledge hammers and shouting "go".

By arguing two very simple rule calls the player has already established the hammers are needed.

I'm sympathetic on the first and unsure of the second without knowing the argument. I've dealt with such people...without hammers. They're not necessary between adults.

And my experiences have shown me that the very act of challenging the GM in public and as vocally as the player did warrants only one kind of response.
A vocal and very public verbal slap down.
If a challenge is made during game it must be addressed in the same venue or no resolution will last.

Like I said, amateurish. The whole it's-me-against-you approach to gaming is something I fail to see the wisdom in and nobody has yet come up with a decent explanation for it. Although I agree that the problem should be addressed, I don't see how bypassing all conversation and jumping straight to ultimatums is any better as a GM than a player who tries to take too much. The argument against trying to gain a player's respect has never been well made. And, no, "obey me because you must" just doesn't cut it. Either go for it, or don't do anything at all and just go separate ways.

[Soldier of Od]

I have to agree with Natasha here. Maybe I've just been lucky with players and with GMs, but I've never seen a situation where we have had to go to the 'if you don't like, it leave my game' ultimatum that so many of you seem to very quickly put forward as your first or second course of action.

Can't we all just get along?

[Natasha]

I vehemetly (and I KNOW I spelled that wrong) disagree with the person who said to "give a little". The simple fact is, YOU are running the game. Unless you're deviating a million miles from the rules, and not informing players of changes beforehand, or being completely inconsistent, then the argument is invalid. Like I said before- during the game is NOT time to stop and argue. Especially if it's stuff like his OPINION or "character concept". If that was the case, I have a character concept that involves having a regenerating magical forcefield with 1000000 SDC (or MDC based on setting) and perfectly covers me... you see, it's part of the CONCEPT. It's all right there in his backstory. Argument invalid, right?

That was me, and, yes, your argument is absolutely invalid—by way of false analogy.

[Natasha]

I have to agree with Natasha here. Maybe I've just been lucky with players and with GMs, but I've never seen a situation where we have had to go to the 'if you don't like, it leave my game' ultimatum that so many of you seem to very quickly put forward as your first or second course of action.

It really depends on the situation. If the person is reasonable and calm, then by all means the right way to handle things is by talking it out, if it can be done in a way that doesn't derail the game. On the other hand, if a player is making demands or overruling the GM, they are usually already at a point where a diplomatic solution is impossible - because they have closed themself off to feedback.

You just said you spent 30 years not talking it out.

Without knowing what was said and how it was said, I see no reason to assume that the GM is not a part of the problem, that diplomatic solutions are impossible, what, if any (and how) feedback was given, so on and so forth.

As an aside, overreaching power tripping GMs are worse than overreaching power tripping players.

[Killer Cyborg]

That was one

Yes.

[Killer Cyborg]

Like I said, amateurish.

Unless one of us is getting paid to game, we're all amateurs.

[Marrowlight]

That was one sentence in a paragraph of several paragraphs.

It was the only one worth emoticon'ing over! <3

Oh

I now feel guilty for not giving you more ****


If work will slow down....this post will also have a longer response in it. omg.

As an aside, overreaching power tripping GMs are worse than overreaching power tripping players.

So I think what I said might've carried a different wavelength than intended. I was trying to advise the OP specifically - s/he (I think she...so I'm sticking with she, no offense intended if I'm remembering gender wrong) made a post that made me think she was trying to be firm in the face of a new player, and so I worded a response that I felt could allow for such a stance to be taken. I wasn't trying to mold her into being an overreaching power tripping GM - just one who has made their decision on how they want things to be run, and isn't looking to be flexible on it.

This wasn't intended as universal advice by any stretch of the imagination, neither in terms of situations or persons. Like for me, I can't even really conceive of this exact situation ever happening to me - because I don't GM the same way, and I'm a pretty straight up beer and pretzels type GM anyway...and I screen the hell out of my players before the game even begins. Any conflicts I'm going to have should be resolved long before people have even made their characters - or shown up to my house. I'd give different advice to others based on their scenarios, etc, etc.

tldr - wasn't trying to be power trippy, just seemed like she wanted advice on how to be firm in the scenario.

I can kill your characters with a wave of my hand, what more power do I need?

[Natasha]

Like I said, amateurish.

Unless one of us is getting paid to game, we're all amateurs.

I will clarify.

Unskillful; inept: "amateurish actors".

[Natasha]

I now feel guilty for not giving you more ****


If work will slow down....this post will also have a longer response in it. omg.

Excellent. I hope work will slow down!

[Marrowlight]

I now feel guilty for not giving you more ****


If work will slow down....this post will also have a longer response in it. omg.

Excellent. I hope work will slow down!

it didn't. lol. I still haven't actually eaten my lunch yet.

[Damian Magecraft]

Like I said, amateurish.

Unless one of us is getting paid to game, we're all amateurs.

I will clarify.

Unskillful; inept: "amateurish actors".

I wouldn't call responding to a challenge when it occurs as childish or inept.
In fact not responding to the public challenge until you can privately projects an image of no response.
This is not a message to send in a group dynamic.

[Natasha]

Like I said, amateurish.

Unless one of us is getting paid to game, we're all amateurs.

I will clarify.

Unskillful; inept: "amateurish actors".

I wouldn't call responding to a challenge when it occurs as childish or inept.
In fact not responding to the public challenge until you can privately projects an image of no response.
This is not a message to send in a group dynamic.

My disagreement is with the proposed response.

[SmilingJack]

3 Thoughts

1: as a GM you should be having fun too, it's not your responsibility to put up with bad argumentative players, if you're not having fun don't compromise your enjoyment just for the sake of holding a game, you obviously enjoy GM'ing don't let one person ruin it for you, excise them, other players want to play not squabble over rules, they'll appreciate your decision

2. When I run a adventure I always tell my PCs, OK look sometimes I may make mistakes, for the game though , go with my ruling and let's play, if you have concerns discuss it after, we will deal with it then, but during the game, you play and continue on, GM's call stands for THIS adventure

3. Give him 2 chances, if he fails both, ask him to leave outside of the game

Be strong, set the tone, and stick to your decision

I hope everything works out for you :0)

[Natasha]

You just said you spent 30 years not talking it out.

Is that what my words on the page say or is that your personal interpretation of my words?

Without knowing what was said and how it was said, I see no reason to assume that the GM is not a part of the problem,

That is a Argument From Ignorance Fallacy: you are drawing a conclusion from a lack of knowledge.

that diplomatic solutions are impossible, what, if any (and how) feedback was given, so on and so forth.

(same as above)

As an aside, overreaching power tripping GMs are worse than overreaching power tripping players.

For someone who advocates a 'diplomatic solution', I have noticed that many of your comments contain Ad Homiens: usings words like "amateurish" and "power-tripping GMs" and other negative labels for those who disagree with you. Neither I or Damian or anyone else is going around making personal character comments, but you've done several times. This seems very contradictory to your goal of 'talking it out'.

If my reasoning is erroneous, please clarify.

You did say you spent 30 years using the same technique (of pulling out hammers and shouting "go").

I did not conclude anything from a lack of knowledge; indeed, I said nothing can be concluded (in response to the conclusion that this guy deserves to be slapped down in a very public and vocal way).

I've not discussed anyone's character, neither have I used any kind of ad hominem argumentation.

[Natasha]

In fact not responding to the public challenge until you can privately projects an image of no response. This is not a message to send in a group dynamic.

I couldn't agree more.

Me, too.

Then again I cannot think of a time it ever happened that a Game Master did not respond to a public challenge.

[Natasha]

Perhaps you missed the part he said hammers were necessary. It started like this. He claimed it was a control war. I suggested an alternative without pulling out hammers. He responded that the player "established the hammers are needed". I responded that they aren't necessary between adults. To which he said the player "warranted only one kind of response. A vocal and very public verbal slap down". To which you said you have been using this technique for the last 30 years. It is not a subjective interpretation the proverbial hammers are the "exact technique" under discussion.

I did not use a double negative; notice that they are both verbs and notice that double negatives are between a verb and some part of which is not a verb. Still, as English is not my native language, I'll rephrase. No conclusion can be drawn in regards to the GM's role if any as a part of the problem. Fixed!

Once again, I called the style amateurish and I never said anyone was an amateur. According to you logic a critical analysis of anything is an ad hominem which is not true.

[Natasha]

As i said earlier if a player spends more time arguing with the Gm and disrupting the play session, Don't play with them.

As demonstrated here.

Even if the argument is well made?

[Marrowlight]

I'm feeling all ignored, Natasha.

[flatline]

Use a boggle timer. When the player starts to argue, start the timer. If he hasn't changed your mind by the time his 3 minutes is up, calmly tell him the discussion is over, your ruling stands, and if he wants to talk about it later, that's fine, but session time is limited and precious, so it's time to resume playing.

As a GM, if you make a bad decision, it's okay for a player to point that out, but the discussion needs to be time boxed since that time takes away from everyone's play time.

If the player doesn't understand that he's effectively stealing time from the rest of the group, then either explain it to him somehow or, if it turns out that he's sociopathic enough to not care, don't invite him back.

It's never come to that in any group I've played with, but I've heard some real horror stories. I consider myself lucky.

--flatline

[Giant2005]

I've recently had to change the players in my group, and one particular person has been in the last two games. New to the system, GM of another system. In both games, he didn't just question a GM call, he vigorously argued against me. I spoke with other players afterwards, and they were in shock of his behavior.

They weren't unfair calls, in my opinion. In the first game, he asked if the tracks leading into a trapdoor or out of a trapdoor were newer. I said he needed to roll Track Humanoids to tell. He argued that he would just be able to tell simply because he had the skill and would be able to see how the dirt was layered. In the second game, he failed a Horror Factor roll. I told him he was afraid of the Wolfen character. He said that because of his character concept, he reacted to things less strongly and therefore would be only slightly disquieted. I said no, he failed, he is afraid, play it out. (He missed it by a fair amount.) In both cases, when I upheld my original call, he went back and forth a few rounds instead of accepting it.

I'm always open to a reasonable disagreement and have reversed calls in the past when presented with a logical argument. I have stopped a game upon occasion to consult with two other GMs of the Palladium system to make sure I was making a right call. In the above cases though, the rules seemed clearcut (there's a reason for percentages and there's a reason Wolfen have a horror factor) and the only argument was he had a different opinion of how things should be, not a rule or precedent or theoretical physics to the contrary.

I've never had a player like him. I've GM'ed a few years, but I don't consider myself experienced since it has always been with friends outside the game and there are social boundaries that are respected. Now for the first time I am GMing for relative strangers. And I cannot, I refuse to, lose control of my table. So I am appealing to the more experienced GMs here on the boards, how do I maintain control and respect? How can I nip the open arguing in the bud?

You need to explain to him why he is wrong. Do that enough times and he will respect your knowledge enough to not call you out.
For example, with respect to his character concept, tell him that the mistake was his. If that was his concept, he should have made his character a Paratrooper, Magebane or Apok - classes that are immune to Horror Factor like it seems he wanted. He was unfamiliar with the rules and made the mistake of not using them to meet the concept he wanted.
With the Trapdoor thing, tell him that he still needs to roll but that he is right. Because he has the skill and the time to make a fair assessment, he can roll without penalties associated with pressure situations. Due to his knowledge, he can avoid being penalized by a difficult, complex or familiar task. That sounds like compromise enough to keep him happy and it is done without actually compromising anything.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Can we all stop nitpicking each other overwho's right, who's wrong, who's an amateur, etc? We're all giving the OP our individual opinions of how we would handle it, with the information given.

And omg, I just said something mature and grownup!

[Natasha]

Perhaps you missed the part he said hammers were necessary.

He may have said that, but I did not. I asked you if something was what I said and you replied by quoting someone else.

It started like this. He claimed it was a control war. I suggested an alternative without pulling out hammers. He responded that the player "established the hammers are needed". I responded that they aren't necessary between adults. To which he said the player "warranted only one kind of response. A vocal and very public verbal slap down". To which you said you have been using this technique for the last 30 years. It is not a subjective interpretation the proverbial hammers are the "exact technique" under discussion.

Yes, the part that I quoted - which I have been using for 30 years - is: "A vocal and very public verbal slap down." I specifically quoted this as the technique I have used. Thus, you are arguing that I am attributtable for everything Damian said.

This is a Equivocation Fallacy: one does not mean all. Agreeing with one thing Damian said does not mean I agree with everything Damian said, and, hence, attributing all quotes by him to me is fallacious.

--SNIP--
Still, as English is not my native language, I'll rephrase. No conclusion can be drawn in regards to the GM's role if any as a part of the problem. Fixed!

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Once again, I called the style amateurish and I never said anyone was an amateur.

So you're arguing that telling someone their style is "amateurish" is not implying that they are an amateur themselves? Could you demonstrate how that works logically, please?

According to you logic a critical analysis of anything is an ad hominem which is not true.

How so?

The hammers were proverbial, figures of speech; they are perfectly interchangeable with verbal slap down. Replace hammers with verbal slap down and nothing changes. I took no inductive steps, drew no conclusions, and committed no fallacy.

I have just two objections (that if you choose to address them, we may continue, but if you don’t the we aren’t). First, that the only warranted response is a verbal slap down; second, that a verbal slap down is ever warranted between adults. I am critical of the claim without resorting to “because you’re stupid”. There is no ad hominem. The simplest explanation that I can give you is that some times people—even highly skilled people—make mistakes: a sort of “gah, rookie mistake!” moment but not precisely.

[Natasha]

I'm feeling all ignored, Natasha.

Eat up and rest well. Allah forbid you make this easy for me.

[Marrowlight]

Damn right!




(I actually didn't think I was making it hard, I just noticed the thread going in a direction I hadn't thought it would, so figured I'd step back in.)

[Natasha]

Really makes me wonder what you were expecting.

[Marrowlight]

Not to get my suggestion called amateur a post later, for one


But in general, I think it's both funny and perhaps appropriate for a bunch of GMs to disagree on how to handle a situation which, at its heart, is about a disagreement in approach between two GMs. Though probably not very useful to the OP, funny or not.

[Natasha]

Only as an immediate response do I think so.

[arouetta]

You need to explain to him why he is wrong. Do that enough times and he will respect your knowledge enough to not call you out.
For example, with respect to his character concept, tell him that the mistake was his. If that was his concept, he should have made his character a Paratrooper, Magebane or Apok - classes that are immune to Horror Factor like it seems he wanted. He was unfamiliar with the rules and made the mistake of not using them to meet the concept he wanted.
With the Trapdoor thing, tell him that he still needs to roll but that he is right. Because he has the skill and the time to make a fair assessment, he can roll without penalties associated with pressure situations. Due to his knowledge, he can avoid being penalized by a difficult, complex or familiar task. That sounds like compromise enough to keep him happy and it is done without actually compromising anything.

I had not thought of the fact that he is unfamiliar with the basic rules. I will tell him that questioning is okay, flat out arguing is not, and have to be based on something more that "opinion". And I'm a rules-lawyer (yes, the other GMs hate me at times, but I do know when to accept "for the good of the story"), so I'll use that to my advantage by quoting chapter and verse, rather than just say, "You fail", etc.

[arouetta]

Use a boggle timer. When the player starts to argue, start the timer. If he hasn't changed your mind by the time his 3 minutes is up, calmly tell him the discussion is over, your ruling stands, and if he wants to talk about it later, that's fine, but session time is limited and precious, so it's time to resume playing.

As a GM, if you make a bad decision, it's okay for a player to point that out, but the discussion needs to be time boxed since that time takes away from everyone's play time.

If the player doesn't understand that he's effectively stealing time from the rest of the group, then either explain it to him somehow or, if it turns out that he's sociopathic enough to not care, don't invite him back.

It's never come to that in any group I've played with, but I've heard some real horror stories. I consider myself lucky.

--flatline

I do have access to a 5 minute hourglass, I'll try that.

[Noon]

What does 'you failed your horror factor save, play it out' mean? If it means losing the first attack, initiative and no defence against it, okay.

If you are actually telling the player how he is to roleplay his character - well, that's 'a different way of playing' like cooking food, spitting in it then expecting someone else to eat it is 'a different way of cooking'. It's not really, it's just revolting. Hopefully 'play it out' & 'no, you don't get to play out a reserved character' doesn't mean something like this.

On the tracking thing, he seems rather stuck in his own ways. But the fact is it could be played out his way - you're just being stuck in your own way of doing it as well. Basically you are looking at a mirror of yourself, since you're both of a similar attitude on the matter (you both stick to 'how I've always done it' as if that's the only way to do it) - be careful not to be insulted by what you see.

[Dog_O_War]

It really sounds like the majority of you guys do not have control of your games. I do not mean any offence by this, but follow my story for a moment.

So waaay back when - I was that argumentative player, because I had in-fact read the rules and was (and still am) damn good at remembering them. I would call GMs on their rulings all the time and people found it annoying.

Except that I wouldn't just do it when it was in favour of the group; I would remind the GM of effects and whatnot that he forgot that should be taken into account for us (ie: penalties and damage).

So this happened for years, and eventually one GM made me really realize why I would "argue" about rulings - it was often not the rule I called into question, but the contrary ruling the GM was giving; the example of this is when a GM says, "I use the rules by the books" and then does the exact opposite.

You cannot believe nor trust a GM that contradicts his own rulings.

So what we started to do was simply task someone to go 'to the books'. It takes way less time than arguing and the outcome is always viewed as final and fair; the GM abides and the players do too.

We do this because at the end of the day, the rules are the road our game travels on - the GM is the driver and the players are the passengers. There is no point in arguing how smooth or rough that road is when you can just get out and check it for yourself.

And once a ruling is known, it is at that point the GM states that he may be overriding the rule, to which we players either accept or gripe, but know that the rule was known and then overruled.

[flatline]

We do this because at the end of the day, the rules are the road our game travels on - the GM is the driver and the players are the passengers. There is no point in arguing how smooth or rough that road is when you can just get out and check it for yourself.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it (and this is how I look at it) is that the rules are suggestions to the GM on how he might handle things. As such, the players aren't playing Rifts, they are instead playing Flatline's Rifts (or Bob's, or whomever the GM is). It is the GM's responsibility to set expectations properly at the beginning of play, especially if his version of the game varies dramatically from the game as published.

--flatline

[Dog_O_War]

We do this because at the end of the day, the rules are the road our game travels on - the GM is the driver and the players are the passengers. There is no point in arguing how smooth or rough that road is when you can just get out and check it for yourself.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it (and this is how I look at it) is that the rules are suggestions to the GM on how he might handle things. As such, the players aren't playing Rifts, they are instead playing Flatline's Rifts (or Bob's, or whomever the GM is). It is the GM's responsibility to set expectations properly at the beginning of play, especially if his version of the game varies dramatically from the game as published.

--flatline

'Rules are suggestions' is exactly the contradiction I am talking about.

Rules are rules; you either use them or you don't - you don't "use them sometimes" because that is what brings about arguments.

See, when you turn a rule into a suggestion, then you cannot expect that the players simply abide by any rulings you make, simply because you have already established the precedent that your rulings are merely suggestions. in essence: your world is jello. It is not concrete because the rules are wishy-washy and thus can be thrust to the fore-front of the players' minds (breaking verisimilitude).


I don't mean to spark an argument or anything; I am simply stating what I am seeing. That is, the contradiction you have put forth.

[flatline]

Let me restate: the rules in the books are suggestions. MY own rules, which may or may not coincide with the book rules, are consistently and rigorously applied.

The players know the rules because they were clearly established at the beginning of the campaign, often by consensus.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I am both eager and terrified to know what sort of rules you follow, Flatline.

[Dog_O_War]

Let me restate: the rules in the books are suggestions. MY own rules, which may or may not coincide with the book rules, are consistently and rigorously applied.

The players know the rules because they were clearly established at the beginning of the campaign, often by consensus.

--flatline

That is more concrete, but still doesn't sound completely solid. Yet, I have the feeling that you have covered all your bases.