Last night, I just played one of my first sessions of D&D. When we got into combat, the other players started rules lawyering like hell, and the GM didn't go, "You know what, fuck it, you're ruining the flow of the game." He actually looked every single rule up, which made a four-round combat take around two hours.

Does this happen to you?

Not really. I think that in general the rules represent a contract between the players and the GM. It allows the players to appropriately estimate the outcome of their actions. "if i do this, x will happen". They are required because the world exists in imagination, and there can be a big gap between what a player expects to be able to do, and what the GM considers will happen for the same action.

Having said that, I think it's important to stick to the rules as a GM. The only times a rules lawyer will indeed ask for a rule check is when he thinks the GM has not followed a rule. If it's happening all the time, than the GM is probably not following the rules much.

Of course, we all know the GM can't and probably shouldn't follow the rules all the time, in the name of creative liberty. But I think each group needs to know beforehand just where the line between following the rules or not is drawn.

Rules haggleing is supposed to take place after gaming. It happens ingame, tough.

Usually a less involved player looks up the rule so that it is known NEXT time. The only GM who was often insisting on looking up rules immediately is moving away tomorrow - a loss in other areas, but not this one.

It generally doesn't happen with us because we pretty much know most of the rules we're interacting with and we're very good at looking rules up quickly when we aren't certain. The response you indicated that he did not give is exactly the kind of response to avoid, as Backgammon says.

~J

It happens way too often with my group, although not as much when I'm running. I've seen a GM and Player get into a shouting match, and arguments coninue long past the point where someone says "you're right, let's move on."

Luckily, my regular gaming groups (I take part in two) either know the rules backwards and forwards, come from a wargaming background, or both.

If we know the rules backwards and forwards, the odds of a slip-up in the first place are slim, and when one happens the person who corrects the wrong call can pin down a page number pretty quick. If we come from wargaming, we're used to stupidly complicated rules anyways (so slip ups don't happen as often), and if we come across a rules disagreement we've gotten used to just saying "4, 5, or 6 it, dude" (roll a d6, on a 4+ one thing happens, on a 3- the other), which might as well be flipping a coin and moving on.

And, well, if we've got both, we're so used to shitty rules and all that, we tend to get through a game just fine through some combination of the two. I've never seen a rules dispute take longer than thirty seconds real-time, or one back-and-forth post on-line. Someone either has the right answer (and immediately backs it up with a page reference), or we say "fuck it" and roll a die, then drive on.

In my gaming experience I don't think I've encountered a time this didn't happen, if they weren't friends and the only people available to rp with then it might be a different story. Imagine if you will those 2 hours going on every encounter of every game for the rest of your life. Here's some advice on dealing with them, bring a book to read, or something to do on the side.


Oh yeah, D&D is dead to me, rest in hell.

It's not dead. You just have to have access to Necromancy, Raise Old Edition. We played some 2nd AD&D a while back again and the overall experience stomped the CRAP out of 3x.

If you're thinking of playing AD&D 1e or 2e, contemplate playing Hackmaster instead. Desppite common belief it's not a joke game, and is actually really good if you like the way 1e and 2e played.

I always did have alot of fun with 2nd ed, 3rd seemed too sterile.

I'm working my way through the most recent Hackmaster PG these days, and I'm pretty impressed so far... it feels like AD&D 3e, seriously.

I didn't read it in depth, but my skim through Hackmaster gave me the impression that it was over-the-top with trying to have rules for everything (of course you don't have to use them...). Looks like a cool system that you could have fun with, but when I think of AD&D, I'm wanting AD&D, not a system that's similar in goal.

Shrike: It's definitely more like 3e then 3e was (not that I'm knocking 3.x).

eidelon: I prefer HM because of the addons they made (like honor and crits), but there are definitely some big differences that might turn off a purist (like honor and crits).

I seem to remember honor in the 2nd edition system being introduced with one of the campaign settings (possibly Oriental Adventures, not sure as I don't use it; could also be in Birthright). As far as crits, do you mean extended hit locations and effects type stuff? There was always so much of that in 2nd edition (be it in an official sourcebook or home made and available on the web) that I didn't even note that as "new" with HM.

I might check it out sometime if someone's running it. I'm not saying it's a bad system. I just don't want to have to learn it well enough to run it, especially when I'm just after a game of AD&D.

Honor (from Oriental Adventures) was all about how well you followed the code of Bushido. Honor (from Hackmaster) ties your alignment, actions, and character class together as a measure of your "badassitude."

I can't give you a big rundown on crits in Hackmaster because they're in the Gamemaster's Guide, which is GM-eyes only. But that's the general idea. From what I've heard the charts are really good, but all O can do is pass along other peoples' opinions on that part of it.

If you see it at a half price bookstore or something go ahead and pick it up. Even if you don't play it the books are a great read and source for ideas. I swiped a few things out of the PHB for future ideas for when I run 3.5 next.

Other than that though, definitely play the game you want to play, you just might be surprised if that game changes once you've had more exposure to HM.

In my early days, I often haggled about rules, especially when one of us players were inconvenienced by the way the GM used the rules.
Someday I realized that our chars wouldn't die a horrible death despite the GM's ruling of the rules.
Today, when I think something is really off (and just not a difference of style), I make a note and talk about it later.

Oh, when I am the GM, I tend to say 'Shut up. Remember me after the game, then we can talk about it'.

Do your players frequently forget you after the game?

My players know that when they game under me, I reserve the right to put forth any house rules calls or smudge the existing rules to better fit a situation. Usually, all of my calls are seen as fair and just, and if there is ever a dispute it is handled quickly -- sometimes with a third party checking the rulebook for clarification. Irregardless, the final call in any argument is made by myself after taking into consideration the player's argument.

With that in mind, if there is ever a Player vs. Player conflict, the books and GM screens come out and everything is handled 100% by the book, down to the letter. If a player's death can result from the actions of another, the only way to negate any doubt of the outcome is to strictly adhere to the rules as printed in black and white.

It's very important for the GM to be consistent with him(her)self whenever straying from canon (about every 37 seconds in my games.) Once players play with me for a bit, they know what to expect.

Having said that, I would never chose a rule over common sense. If a player appeals for a certain outcome, I do my best to elicit why they think that way, and they need more than "because the sidebar on page 113 says so" to convince me.

I also get frustrated when newer players --usually with a background in computer games, it seems-- are immobilized by the inability to think outside of the rules. It's like they see the rules as a list of options and they feel they aren't allowed to do anything else. I remember shocking one noob when another player bought several pieces of gear that weren't listed in any book, spent a couple of hours playing with them and thumbing through the manuals, then used them very effectively in a run. It was like he couldn't understand how I could allow that to happen without any dice rolls!. I said I let him do it 'cause it sounded cool, it made sense, and I wanted to see what would happen.

But that's just my style. Some people like it, some don't. 'sokay.

My players are fairly good about this when I GM. The standard practice we've fallen into is if there's a rule dispute, the player mentions it. If we can't very quickly solve it (such as a rapid flip through to an immediately known page), the current rule stands for the sake of keeping the flow of the game going, and we look it up in detail after the session is over. Usually there's no retraction, but we will begin using the correct method next session.

Overall we're a pretty easy-going group when it comes to accepting the realities of gaming. ("How'd they manage to arrive just the same time we did?" "Dramatic contrivance." "Oh, okay.")

Rules ARE important, particularly for consistency. When you're trying to figure out if your hacker can break into a particular system, with particular ratings... well, your character will have a fair idea, based on prior experience breaking into other systems. The PLAYER has absolutely no idea, as they aren't matrix hackers themselves. Instead, they have the system. They can look at their dice ratings, and go 'hells yeah, I can do this in three seconds flat.'

If the GM has instituted a house rule, or gets the ruling wrong, then suddenly the player is wrong... and so is the character. Reality has changed while they weren't looking, and they're left skating on thin ice. It's not a nice feeling. And so in an effort to forestall reality changing again, the player may argue about the rules.

If I'm the GM, I'll apologise profusely for not warning them about my house rules, and give them the opportunity to re-think their actions. If I simply got the ruling wrong, I'll look it up -- it's worth doing this in the first few sessions, just to get the rules in everyone's heads.

Basically, the rules is how the players interface with the physics of the game world. We can imagine what it looks like and what it feels like with our own heads and through the characters themselves, but the rules are how the characters actually change things there. Hence, it's important to get them right... or at least, consistent, so players can judge the potential outcome of their actions at least as well as their characters could. For this reason, I warn my players of all the house rules I'll be using, as specifically as possible (but sometimes generally, if I've overhauled a particular area but haven't worked out the specifics yet), in order to forestall frustration over something being harder than the book would indicate.

I "haggle" over rules without any limits and am totally willing to spend heaps of time looking up rules during the game.

The reason is that I feel that without consistency, correctness, and correctly letting the dice fall where they may there is no true "game". If we're going to play a game and not write a disjointed collaborative story there needs to be objective parameters for success but also the possibility of catastrophic failure.

How long do your games take, though?

I think I should probably add a bit to my earlier post about my group haggling all the time. I don't generally partake in it now (although I'm not a perpetual abstainer, just a usual one).

I used to argue left and right about anything that didn't match the rules as written. Then one night I was too exhausted, distracted, or whatever. Instead of spending my energy arguing rules I watched the other players (usually the same two) doing it. It made me realize how pointless it was. It almost always meant the difference between one or two dice to roll, or +1 - +3 on a die roll, or somebody being able to do more than seemed logicial. Sometimes even them being able to do less then they already had even though the encounter was already in thehistory books.

Since then I've tried to just let things flow. If something is going to kill my character and I know the rules are different I'll definitely speak up. But if it just means getting hit, or getting a hit in myself, it's not worth it.

Just remember, if the game starts to drag: "Stop it with those negative vibes, you're bringing me down!" - Oddball, Kelly's Heroes

That requires having generally relaxed players. If you have players who really freak out when their characters take damage or face death things go a bit less smoothly.

The next time one of my games gets bogged down in a rules disagreement, I'll do the same thing I do if one of my games gets bogged down in a planning session, or any other lull in meaningfull activity -- commando attack.

Nothing says "your pitiful rules quibble is meaningless" quite like throwing six or eight more attackers at your group of 'runners.

If someone, even the GM, is making calls that are blatently contradictory to the RAW, and it has not been made clear that it's a house rule -- then there's nothing wrong with asking. GM's make mistakes too, and sometimes just don't remember rules. Or have gotten caught by errata, and so on. And if you don't investigate it, you can wind up with things like dead characters that shouldn't have died, and a lot more continuity problems then a long combat. And personally, I'd be more annoyed about having a character get slaughtered because the GM forgot that there was pea soup and a friendly mage throwing shielding over the metalhead when the other mage aimed his manabolt..

What Herald said.

I can sit back and let them argue all they want. Eventually they'll be done and the game will recommence. If I'm feeling generous maybe while they're yakking back and forth I'll actually look up the rule.

I was about to get on your case about "maybe" looking up the rule, but… at that point they're still yakking? Do they not have copies of the rules, or something? If not, they can't borrow yours?

I mean, I'm of the opinion that the answer should only not be unambiguously decided if doing so is for some reason totally impractical (absent book, contradictory rules, undefined situation, etc.)—where "I don't feel like looking it up" is a wrong, wrong, wrong answer, but if they aren't already looking it up at that point, I guess I can't have sympathy.

~J

So what's everyone's opinion on this?: making sure that every rule is applied can sometimes slow the pace of the game to the point where players get bored and frustrated. Therefore it is important for a GM to balance fair and consistent application of the rules with the regard for pacing and drama. It'd probably be pretty ridiculous to expect everyone to agree on where that balance lies.

It's really not a matter of rules: yes or rules: no. It's more about rules: what priority? I would suggest then that for those whom the rules are a higher priority, it would be more important to make sure all players are well informed about house rules, have all rulebooks handy, and are generally more well read on them. If I were playing in a game with Wounded Ronin as GM, it would be in my best interest to make sure that I knew the rules as well as he expected me to, for everyone's enjoyment.

..although I respectfully suggest that those of us who debate this sort of thing on dumpshock for days probably represent a rather biased section of the "haggling rules" debate. It's pretty much what we do here...