[Long] GM Refusal to Explain Ruling

[captain_bateson]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I am going to try to present this as objectively as I can, in order to (hopefully) get some useful feedback.

I am in a game played on a public message board. Recently, during a combat scene, the GM made a ruling that contravenes the rules in the rulebook of the roleplaying system in at least six different ways. I was one of the playtesters of that system, over fifteen years ago, so I know it pretty well. I also consulted with three other playtesters and veteran players of the game to make sure I wasn't crazy. The ruling makes absolutely no sense to me or the others I spoke to, as I said, in at least six different ways.

Now, I will point out that the GM has previously stated, on several occasions, a bedrock firm belief that the rules should never be thrown out the window, even when dramatically appropriate. They must always be followed. In fact, she has insisted that the rules be followed without interpretation. As such, this ruling, which I cannot see anyone guided by the rules arriving at, baffled me.

So, I outlined the factors in the ruling that contravened the rules.

The GM responded by saying that she had taken those factors into account, and that the ruling stands.

So, still baffled, I once again asked her to reconsider and explain her ruling. She told me that she would allow no debate on the subject.

Now, I should explain that I am not only baffled by the ruling itself, but I don't actually understand what happened within the game world. I know the end results of the ruling, but I don't know what my character experienced and saw that led up to that result. I have no idea, inside the game world, how things transpired.

So, I ask the GM to explain what, exactly, happened, so that I can understand both what my character has just experienced and so that I can understand her interpretation of the rules for use in the future.

She responds by telling me that one of my assumptions about the situation is wrong and that my character did not end up in as bad a situation as I was making out.

I respond by telling her that what's important is that the ruling doesn't make any sense and I want to understand it. Asserting that my assumption was incorrect wasn't relevant, since, per the rules of the game, what happened could not happen whether my assumption was correct or incorrect. In both cases, the rules were contravened, simply in different ways.

(I should note that I did get kind of nasty during some of these later exchanges, accusing her of screwing my character over and the like. The GM responded with no less than three ad hominem attacks on me, so I call it even).

Now, she is simply refusing to discuss the issue. I have already accepted the ruling within the game and let the game move forward as a show of good faith. I simply asked her for an explanation. Yet she refuses to give one.

So, I am left not understanding what happened, why it happened, or the logic the GM used to arrive at her ruling. I don't understand how she is interpreting the rules, so I can't know how things will be adjudicated in the future either. This will almost inevitably lead to more fights. Also, it's hard for me to know what my character should do, because, to her, it's like when film skips and suddenly everything is different. Since the GM won't explain what happened within the game world, I don't know what happened in the space between the time before the ruling and after the ruling.

Is it wrong for a player to expect some kind of explanation for a ruling that contravenes the rules in numerous ways? Especially when the GM has set the ground rule that the rulebook is law and shall always be followed? I mean, she hasn't even given me an alternate interpretation or anything. I have no idea how she arrived at this ruling. Shouldn't the GM have some measure of accountability to the players to be fair and honest, and thus be willing to give some kind of explanation for rulings that seem unfair and illegal? Am I crazy?

[greedo1379]

(I should note that I did get kind of nasty during some of these later exchanges, accusing her of screwing my character over and the like. The GM responded with no less than three ad hominem attacks on me, so I call it even).

I think its pretty obvious why she refuses to even discuss the issue anymore.  I don't blame her.

Since you didn't provide any information about the actual in game situation I can't offer that much.  Could your character have been charmed?  Subject to illusionary magic or been drugged?  Is there anything that perhaps could have affected your character's perceptions of the situation.  Perhaps the critical hit you had against a zombie was actually against air and that's why it didn't drop.  I'm reminded of the Zoolander scene where Owen Wilson says "So there I was, free climbing on Mt. Vesuvius when, all of the sudden my hand slips and I start falling.  So I'm falling and I'm screaming and then I stop and think 'Wait a minute.  I've been dropping acid for the past week.  Is there a small chance that some of this may just be in my mind?'  And you know?  It was.  I've never even been to Mt. Vesuvius."

Regardless, I think you've already pretty well closed the door on receiving any sort of answer from her.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Well, let's see. What's the priority here, actually?

- Making sure that the game was "played right"? It's possible that, as a playtester and longtime veteran of the game, you have a sense of ownership about the system.

- Communicating successfully, between two humans, regardless of the content being communicated (i.e. disagreement)? I'll definitely spot you your current intent for this goal, albeit a little retroactive.

- Sharing "imagined space" successfully, which is to say, simply knowing and agreeing about "what when on"? This is usually what people reference when they're actually trying to resolve disputes about one of the above two, in my experience - certainly my experience from my Champions days, in which "what character perceives" and "how player understands X came about" were often thrown into conflict with one another.

- Setting up some guidelines for continued play with this person? Which is hard to suss out from your post, but for the moment I'll assume that the two of you are not quite, yet, in "Sammy Hagar vs. Van Halen" mode.

I don't think there's much point in talking about blame, agreed? It's all gone south, so now the real goal is (a) venting a bit, for which I think we should be supportive (supportive, greedo!!); and (b) parsing out which of the above seems to be the most important, or which fed negatively into which.

Given my outlook toward what role-playing is, I suggest that issues like GM vs. player or rules-authority vs. personal-authority are red herrings. I suggest instead that the issue is whether each of you are valuing the Shared Imagined Space for reasons/goals that the other can understand and respect. Does that seem like a valuable avenue of discussion to pursue?

Best,
Ron

[ADGBoss]

Hello Capn Bateson, welcome to the show...

I am going to dip in here a bit to try and get a better understanding of whats going on.  Although I know I would personally like (and others may as well) to know more specifics about which system AND which particular rule / ruling, I am not sure that either is relevant to what is really going on here.

First off let me try and understand the problem more.  The GM explained and everyone (I assume, correct if wrong) that the parameters of the game would include the idea that the rules are law, period.  That is fine, nothing wrong with it and only the most unplayable systems will give you issues with this style.  The problem is that having set the parameters, the GM has subsequently ignored them for no apparent or explainable reason.

So she has broken the parameters that she herself insisted on and has subsequently nixed any discussion on the subject? Is this a pretty accurate state of affairs?

I also take it that she has not given any OOC clues along the lines of "I know its looks strange but work with me, all will be revealed."?

How have the other players reacted to this situation? Do they also feel that it is strange and unusual what this GM is doing? This could be nothing more then a big conflict of styles, though I think making a ruling as outside the box as you seem to imply, would be more then just clash of styles.

How have your communications been with the GM on other rulings? On any topic both IC and OOC, as well as off-topic (ie Lakers vs Pistons). Does she know you were a playtester for the system?

Finally a question on Shared Imagined Space as Ron was mentioning. We know that the RULES of the game are law, and that apparently this applies to everyone, including the GM.  What about everything non-rules related ie character backgrounds, story ideas, and other items like that.  I ask this because if she was given, by concsensus or just be no one ever questioning, full creative control as well, then she may see no need to explain her actions.

From what we know so far I would say if nothing else, you have a fair gripe with her communication abilities.  Now its a far cry from bad communicator to Ruthless dictator and she could just be having a bad month, she could feel threatened by your previous experience, or she could be running the game the way she feels was agreed upon.

Feel free to invite her here as well, so that she can have a chance to explain her side / how she feels and maybe open a positive discussion in a more neutral setting.

Thanks

Sean

[captain_bateson]

First off, let me note that the reason I wasn't more specific about the circumstances the first time around was that I was trying to remain in the game and worried about the GM's response were he (it is actually a he) to read this post. The GM in question has quite a temper and I feared he would hold it against me. However, I have subsequently quit the game, so that is no longer an issue. Now, I guess, it's more of an academic point. The GM of the game does actually come here, because it's through him talking about the Forge that I learned of this place.

I will be a bit more explicit about the ruling. This is an Amber game. The situation was like this:

My character, 1st in Warfare and 1st in Strength is backing away from a table at which sits another PC (I'll call him "Spear", not the character's real name) in order to leave the bar in which they've just had a stalled negotiation. My character is backing away in expectation that Spear, a Chaos Lord, will try to Shape Shift or use Logrus to keep her from leaving, so she is wary of either of those things happening.

Spear posts that he speaks with his assistant for a while, then stands up, halfway Shape Shifted into demonform, comes around the table, finishes shifting into demonform, and starts trying to summon the Logrus.

I respond that my character throws a chair at Spear and then rushes him, trying to cut him at the knee.

The GM then rules that Spear gets the Logrus up "in the nick of time" and blocks my swing, forgetting about the chair. My character threw the chair with express intent of keeping Spear from raising the Logrus. The GM then changes his ruling to say that Spear gets the Logrus up "in the nick of time" to stop the chair, which obviously would have arrived sooner than my character's swing.

The problems with this ruling are manifold. First, it takes 1-2 minutes for a full-body Shape Shift according to the ADR rules, when the character is well-rested and uninjured. Spear was up late the previous night and got stabbed.

So, as I see it, either my character, wary of Spear Shape Shifting or the like, failed to notice the shift for the 1-2 minutes it took, or, Spear shifted instantaneously. Also, unless the bar is inside an airplane hangar, I question how my character wasn't out the door and down the block by the time Spear finished shifting. I also wanted to know why my character wasn't allowed to attack as soon as she noticed the shift, as I had made abundantly clear she would have in previous posts.

When I challenged that Spear didn't have the Logrus up and should have needed time to raise it, the GM ruled that Spear had the Logrus up all the time. But, according to the ADR rules, a character can't do anything else requiring attention while having the Logrus up. Shape Shifting requires the character's full attention to prevent a bad shift or Chaos cancer or something.

So, he really couldn't have had the Logrus up that entire time. Spear's player seemed to know this, as he posted his character Shape Shifting first and then raising the Logrus, but he failed to speak up. (He also had "reeled in" all his tendrils as soon as my character, a Princess of Amber, entered the bar, and OOC agreed with a post of mine indicating that my character wouldn't notice the Stench of Chaos in the bar since he had dropped the Logrus as soon as my character entered).

On top of all that, Logrus tendrils fight with a Strength equal to the character's Psyche. He wasn't using Logrus Defense, which creates a shield, but tendrils, which he has to move around to block attacks. My character was 1st in Strength with three times (!) as many points as Spear had in Psyche (everyone's attributes are open in this game). Yet the chair shattered harmlessly against his tendrils instead of smashing through them.

Then, my character swung at Spear with her sword. Spear was 1.5 in Warfare while my character was 1st, which is still a big difference: according to the rules, the 1st in Warfare is superior to the other characters. So, given my character being a superior fighter AND having a three times greater Strength advantage, Spear blocked my character's blow completely and suffered only a bit of a headache.

But, since he wouldn't explain the ruling, I don't actually know what happened! Did Spear Shape Shift instantly? Why wasn't my character able to attack or leave the bar in the 1-2 minutes it should have taken? How was Spear able to Shape Shift and bring the Logrus up before my character could pick up a chair and throw it? Was my character frozen somehow of which I have absolutely no knowledge? I don't know.

So, Greedo, while I did become nasty at a certain point, the GM had already made it clear the he wasn't going to explain his ruling by then. Looking back, though it wasn't the most mature thing to do, I think I was actually trying to provoke a response, that is to say, if the GM really had logic for the ruling, then maybe I could get him to defend the ruling by telling me the logic if I got him angry enough. Not a good strategy, I admit, but I was pretty much at the point of either quitting or doing that, since the GM was totally stonewalling me.

As to charms, illusions, drugs, etc., there is no indication either in or out of game that such a thing was happening. My character is actually a sorceress herself and thus likely to notice such a thing. And, even so, he didn't give me any clue to indicate such a thing, like, "Spear is suddenly before you like the film skipped" or anything. Nor did he say, OOC, "There's something going on you don't know about, so you're going to have to trust me." So, as far as I know, no, there was no such thing going on and no hint whatsoever that there was. In fact, this game is supposed to be totally open, with IC secrets simply not used by players who read about the OOC, and there was another PC in the bar. The GM didn't give him a description of what happened either. If my character were drugged or something, he would probably have noticed and/or seen my character's odd behavior, but no.

Ron, I guess my priorities changed through the conversation. At first, my priority was that the game be "played right," not only because I am a playtester and longtime Amber veteran, but also because of the GM's fiery rhetoric that, and I quote, "We don't throw the rules out the window, even when dramatically appropriate." So, I had an expectation that he would obey the rules closely. I could not figure out how he arrived at his ruling by the rules, so, yes, I felt like he was "playing wrong" and wanted him to fix what he had done.

Then, when it became apparent that he was not going to change the ruling no matter what I said, I gave up on the game being "played right" and my priority became combination of "sharing imagined space," wanting to know what happened, and "setting up some guidelines for continued play with this person," because I wanted to keep playing. I felt that, if I couldn't get an explanation for the ruling and continued not to understand the ruling, I would have to leave the game (as I have now done) because I wouldn't understand the rules of the world the GM was using, and thus would keep getting disappointed and frustrated by the GM's rulings and get into more and more fights with him.

After I posted the first post in this thread, the GM answered my newest request for an explanation with a proclamation that he didn't have to explain his rulings now or in the future. For me, that breaks the contract for the GM to be fair, because the GM is not accountable to anyone and can do whatever he wants (the old saw about the DM's screen being where the DM claims to be fair but actually just makes every NPC "to-hit" roll a 20, you know?) It meant I couldn't trust him, and therefore couldn't play with him.

ADG: Yes, exactly. The GM said the rules were the law, then ignored the rules and refused to explain why. He just kept saying the ruling was "fair" and he wouldn't "debate" it. Now, he's claiming that it's a game where he has ultimate authority to make any ruling he wants without explaining it or being held accountable for it, and that the game was always like that (though he never said that before).

And yes, he has "broken the parameters that [he] insisted on and subsequently nixed any discussion on the subject." That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

No, no OOC clues. I was looking for some. I was hoping he would at least tell me there was a reason for it or that there were factors going on that I didn't know about, but he didn't.

The other players, by and large, have not reacted to the situation. We were almost all in separate threads, and some of them may not have even been reading my threads to see what was happening. But they never seem to stand up for each other when the GM flies off the handle (he has a well-known temper). Reading back before I joined, there were a number of run-ins between the GM and a player, and never did another player step up to his or her defense, and the same is true now, except for me (I have come to others' defenses a few times, which I think drew the GM's ire and my have contributed to this situation). Also, both before and during my time in the game, the GM attacked players and/or made some pretty incredible (at least according to me) rulings that the players just laid down and took. They don't seem a bunch to stand up to the GM.

Spear's player, of course, laid low, because he (I am 99% sure) knew the ruling was wrong. The other PC in the bar seemed about ready to step up and say something several times. He kept PMing me for more clarification about my position, saying he was trying to make sure I was right or something. But he never did. The rest said and did nothing. But, of course, most of them, being in their own threads, have not been subject to very many, if any, of the GM's rulings, so they may just think it's something between me and the GM, as you suggested, not realizing they will be on the business end of such a ruling sometime in the future.

He knew I was a long-time veteran. Not sure if he knew I was a playtester. Our communications, frankly, were terrible before this. He started a fight with me right after I joined the game and then seemed to blame me for fighting with him. It's been rocky ever since. He seemed to enjoy taking me to task for breaking rules he had never promulgated, then not understanding why this upset me. I dunno. I haven't had a single fight with the GM in another, similar Amber game I joined around the same time.

Re: creative control, no!!! In fact, it's supposed to be a cooperative storytelling thing where players can adopt the Author stance and decide what happens and where the story goes. That's part of why I joined. It seemed like this cool, laid back experiment in cooperative storytelling. But then, when I joined, the GM seemed very authoritarian for such a style of play, for instance, crapping all over people's plotlines if he didn't liek them and such. And now the, "I don't have to explain my rulings" thing makes it seem even worse. As far as character backgrounds, we had pretty much complete control, except for having the GM crap on your background if he didn't like it.

[Valamir]

Hmmm.

Well I have to say I'm not entirely sympathetic to your position Captain.  

If this were d20, then maybe I'd feel differently, but geeze...Amber?

So much of Amber relies on GM interpretation anyway I can't imagine getting all rules lawyery with it.  I mean, quite honestly when I played Amber all of those "rules" were treated as just "rules of thumb" anyway.  Rules like "it takes 1-2 minutes" or "can do nothing else while doing X" seem custom made to be violated at will to me...otherwise you wind up with a bunch of carbon copy characters.  

I really can't imagine anyone I've ever played Amber with throwing up the rule book and saying "that should have taken 2 minutes, he couldn't have done it instantaneously...its in the rules".   I mean...come on...its AMBER...you're practically gods fer chrissake.


Secondly, what makes me a little wary here is your indication that your character was first in Warfare and first in Strength.  That immediately raises red flags with me.  Are you sure the issue was really a rules interpretation?  Based on what little you've told us, I'm thinking the rules thing was just the arena you were using for your real issue...which is that you perceive your character to be something of an ueber ass kicker and were somewhat torqued that some mere Chaos Lord brushed off your attack.

Does the real issue perhaps have more to do with you perceiving the GM to have violated your character's image as a bad ass.  This seems to me to fit more with your somewhat hostile confrontation with the GM and unfortuneate baiting tactics.  Character integrity is generally a far more emotionally charged issue than pedantic rules interpretations.


Finally, what was the Chaos Lord's Psyche compared to yours?  If it was higher, then the most obvious interpretation was that the character did obey all of the "rules" and you were simply too distracted and misdirected by him to have noticed it until it was too late.  After all Psyche is the most important characteristic...

[captain_bateson]

Valamir,

Hmm. So you see Amber as a game in which there are no rules at all and the GM can make any ruling under the sun and no one can complain about it? You're not alone. A lot of people refuse to even try Amber for fear that the GM can just screw them all the time. But Amber does have rules, whether they are the hard and fast rules of the book, rules established from reading the novels, or other rules agreed upon by the players and GM. In this case, the GM has stated that the rules will be the rules from the ADR rulebook, in all cases, no exceptions.

As such, don't I have a reasonable expectation that those rules will be followed? If the GM said that he was using his own, home-brewed rules, in which powers are faster than Warfare, that would be fair. But he didn't. He gave me the expectation that the rulebook guidance would be used, in which Warfare is much faster than powers.

The Chaos Lord's Psyche, BTW, was one point higher than my character's. And the Chaos Lord wasn't first. He was like fifth.

Yes, in Amber, the characters are godlike. In this situation, only one character was godlike: the Chaos Lord.

Also, this game uses this weird rolling auction, in which people bid on attributes as they need them, so my character wasn't first in Warfare because of character conception or that I bid a whole ton of points to get them. I just happened to be 1st in both at the point in time when the action happened.

My character, if I didn't make it clear, was trying to escape. There were two PCs there whom she fully expected could kick her ass together. That's why she was leaving. When the Chaos Lord was allowed to Shape Shift and about to get the Logrus up before my character could act or get out of the bar, as she was trying to do, she no longer could run, because he would just use his Logrus tendrils to grab her and pull her back.

She couldn't have an extended fight with the Chaos Lord because the other PC would then just put a stilletto in her back while she was occupied. Her only option was a quick strike and then to flee. So, this is not some big Warfare, "I shoulda been able to kick his ass" thing. If anything, it's, "I should at least have been able to hurt him a little so that I could get away."

I was, as you say, "torqued" that the Chaos Lord brushed off my attack, because he shouldn't have been able to according to the rules. But I didn't need to kick his ass or anything. I actually posted a compromise at one point saying that if the chair had hit him in the face, stopping his summoning of the Logrus, and my character could then flee, that would have been okay. But, I felt the GM bent the rules to give the other player an unfair advantage so that the Chaos Lord wouldn't get hurt, in turn, causing my character to get hurt when she gets double-teamed. So, I wasn't happy about the situation. But, I was willing to listen to an explanation, which the GM would not give me.

And, before the GM stonewalled me again last night, I had already accepted the ruling and was simply asking for an explanation to understand it. He wouldn't even give me that.

I don't know. Maybe you're right and I'm the jerk, Valamir, but it really doesn't seem that way to me. I feel like I had a right to expect a GM whose stated position on the rules was that we follow them by the letter to actually follow them. Maybe that was wrong of me. I feel that giving another player an advantage in order to help that player's character, sacrificing mine, by violating the rules was not something the GM should do. But maybe I'm wrong there too.

I'm interested to see what else you and everyone else has to say!

(If anything in this post came off as angry, I apologize. I'm not angry anymore, since I quit. I'm just in a hurry to get to a FTF game!)

[jeffd]

Hey captain,

It honestly sounds like a social contract violation on the part of your GM.  For whatever reason he decided it would run this way, and isn't going to talk about it.  You've tried to give him opportunities to explain his reasoning and he's demurred.  You say he's got a history of that sort of thing.

If that's the case - then it seems like there's probably not much we can offer you.  You can either continue to be in this game and accept that sometimes this is just going to happen, or you can quit it.

JD

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

QUICK SIDE NOTE
I really, really don't think the discussion is going to get very far with dissecting the actual moment of play involved in terms of whether "the rules" justified anyone in doing anything. I'm getting an eerily reminiscent vibe of hundreds of conversations in which a friend is trying to re-play a dispute with his or her estranged lover to me, and trying to enlist my support in assigning just how terrible or bad or wrong the person was, per sentence of re-play. It's pretty wearing.

Anyway, although this thread hasn't gone there, I'd like to point to the possibility of such storm clouds on the horizon and hope that everyone will work to veer elsewhere. It really isn't a question of who was the jerk. None of us was there, and arguably, since it was an internet interaction, no one was "there."

RANTING WITH LUMPLEY
I do think this: it's quite likely that one or more people are not prioritizing "how to have fun" out of the Shared Imagined Space. There's something else that's more important, like who's-in-charge and don't-you-get-me-angry, or similar.

Let's take a look at this statement:

don't I have a reasonable expectation that those rules will be followed?

My answer: NO. You don't. The "rules" are Social Contract's bitch. I strongly recommend that the Lumpley Principle is the key conceot for this thread: that rules exist as a means of consensus, with the desire for consensus being primary and, itself, not "of" the rules.

And Social Contract includes all many of things like who's-in-charge and don't-you-get-me-angry, as well as (putatively) let's-have-fun-together. When that latter thing gets run over, rough-shod, then references to "the rules!" are hopeless - already obsolete, empty words, fading echoes.

"Rules" in this circumstance are just like any legal ruling which lacks power, and thus forlornly sits there, in the hands of the disenfranchised party, as he stares at it in shock. They are nothing unless they are "juiced" by something else (clout), and in role-playing, that something else is the shared desire to play together, and to agree to use the rules.

When that's gone, or (which amounts to the same thing) are completely subordinated to other aspects/expectations of the Social Contract, then the rules merely flap in the wind.

AND FINALLY, THE REAL POINT OF THE THREAD
Again, I don't think this has anything to do with who was the bad guy. In fact, I think I've been around this particular block from both sides, more than once.

Back in the 1980s, I entered into many a dispute with players as a Champions GM which were very similar to your description of this dispute. In my case, it had a lot to do with outcomes that I had committed myself to prior to playing the scene, as well as a lot of "who's in charge" issues with a particular player. So speaking from that experience, I suggest that the ...

Hey, wait. You posted an answer to what I was about to say already.

At first, my priority was that the game be "played right,"

Yeah, this is exactly what my whole Lumpley argument about was aimed at. Strikes me as a losing proposition.

Then, when it became apparent that he was not going to change the ruling no matter what I said, I gave up on the game being "played right" and my priority became combination of "sharing imagined space," wanting to know what happened, and "setting up some guidelines for continued play with this person," because I wanted to keep playing.

And the key to that is communication, which you tried to do in good faith (and ran into some internet-can't-see-you issues, right?). So far, good!

After I posted the first post in this thread, the GM answered my newest request for an explanation with a proclamation that he didn't have to explain his rulings now or in the future. For me, that breaks the contract for the GM to be fair, because the GM is not accountable to anyone and can do whatever he wants (the old saw about the DM's screen being where the DM claims to be fair but actually just makes every NPC "to-hit" roll a 20, you know?) It meant I couldn't trust him, and therefore couldn't play with him.

Oh! And now I agree with you fully. You got there without me even sayin' anything more.

I'm leaving the Lumpley rant up there, though, 'cause I liked typing it and it's food for thought.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Hi captain_bateson,

Rons post would probably be a bit exhaustive if I were new to the board, so I'll quickly say this:

You say that the GM said he was going to go by the rules. Basically he made a gentlemans agreement with you (called social contract around here).

Not going by the rules does not matter in the least. Breaking them or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Breaking a gentlemans agreement is very, very, very bad.

I'd suggest really seperating in your mind the difference between tiny little rules printed in a book and living, human agreements made between real people. The latter is whats important. You need to let go of the former, forget about it as an arguement.

Your problem is this: Your trying to determe if the very important thing (the gentlemans agreement) was broken by checking whether the very unimportant thing (rules) were broken.

What IS important is if the other person acts the gentleman. If they DO NOT, no amount of talking/bickering about rules will make a difference. All that matters is a gentlemans agreement, and that takes two gentlemen in this case. But in this case, the other isn't acknowledging the agreement, isn't being a gentleman.

So in the spirit of that, QUIT talking about some rules written in a book somewhere. Its like talking about the high price of tuna to stop someone punching you in the face! It's not the right conflict to talk about! :)

And on a final note, from your mentioning of you becoming terse, be careful not to think that if someone else stops being a gentleman, you can stop too. It wont help, even if it feels good in the short term.

[TonyLB]

Hi all!  I'm the GM in question.

I hope it's understandable that I'm a little leery of getting into this discussion.  Ron rightly points out that it has been emotonally charged for both sides.  But I certainly don't feel like I've yet learned how to do better in future, so I either have a choice of ignoring the incident and hoping it never happens again, or trying to learn.  Here's to learning!

I tried to clearly communicate my Social Contract/Lumpley issues to the Captain in-game.  Clearly I failed, as he responded by calling me a liar and proclaiming that the only reason I wouldn't explain my ruling is that I had made it in bad faith.  Still, what I wrote is the most refined idea I currently have of where I stand, so:

In some games it is agreed that the GM has a responsibility to explain any ruling to the satisfaction of all involved. But it's far from universal. Plenty of GMs simply make the decision and expect everyone to accept it and move on. I think that both views on the appropriate level of negotiation are useful, in different types of games.

Some games make it a priority to let people show how well they can manipulate the rules. By extension (insomuch as the rules correspond to game reality) this is a matter of game-world tactics. Players have an incentive to learn and master the rules in order to achieve victory for their characters.

But some games use the rules only to avoid such discussions. Players and the GM agree that they do not enjoy arguing out of character about the rules and the world. They want to devote their energies to telling the story, not manipulating the system. Because that is their priority, they agree that the GM will interpret the rules. Though a player may often disagree, and may voice it, they accept that the goal of playing the game without substantial interruption is the top priority. They'd rather live with a decision that went differently than they expect (or even understand) than bog down the game with incessant negotiations.

We're playing that second type of game. I came in with that bias, and with the exception of you everyone has seemed pretty comfortable with it.

I'm sure this isn't adequate to address all of the many questions that have come up in the course of this thread, but I hope that it is an appropriate start.  I'll try to field further questions, and to accept commentary, both constructive and condemning, with an open mind.

[ethan_greer]

Tony, if I'm reading you right, you're taking sort of a competitive approach to the game, as in, "he who masters the rules masters the game."

As such, I can see why you'd be reticent to explain your ruling.

However, there's also the Scrabble principle, in which anyone can challenge anyone else's word and seek a higher authority (in Scrabble's case, the dictionary). Problem here is, as GM, you're both the participant and the higher authority.

So, as I see it, you have a dual responsibility. First, you're a participant in the competition. You're supposed to give as good as you get and provide the players with challenge. Second, you're the umpire. This dual role is fraught with peril.

What to do, then? I suggest that the Captain (welcome, by the way!) was right to leave the game. Seems like there was a communication breakdown as to the style of play, and it turned out that the Captain didn't  enjoy the kind of game you were running. So, giving the players a clearer idea of what you mean when you say "no exceptions to the rules" would be a good move.

Also, I would suggest having an OOC "area" where rules and rulings can be discussed. This area should be carefully moderated to keep things civil. You and the Captain getting snippy with each other was a bad thing, as I'm sure both of you are aware. While it's true that as GM you have the right to make any ruling you please for any reason without providing explanation, that doesn't mean you should always exercise that right when questions arise. It would be a good thing to set aside a forum where discussions and disclosures can be made, and where players (and GM for that matter) can reassure one another that yes, things in-game are staying fair.

Particularly in a more competitive style of play, the GM needs to establish trust between him or her and the players - the players need to trust that the GM will generally be fair, and the GM needs to trust the players to do the same. In my opinion, Tony violated that trust by refusing to elaborate on a ruling in the face of reasonable objections, and Captain Bateson violated that trust by lashing out in response.

Of further trouble in this situation is that the Captain had the perception that Tony was violating a completely different trust than he was due to misunderstandings of the social contract. So, Tony's there saying, "I'm the umpire and that's my call!" and the Captain's saying, "Rules predicate the in-game reality, and you're circumventing that!"

Gah. Big mess.  Hopefully positives can be drawn from the experience.

Those then are my thoughts on this matter. Of course, all this is predicated on my assumption in the first sentence being correct.

[montag]

But some games use the rules only to avoid such discussions. Players and the GM agree that they do not enjoy arguing out of character about the rules and the world. They want to devote their energies to telling the story, not manipulating the system. Because that is their priority, they agree that the GM will interpret the rules. Though a player may often disagree, and may voice it, they accept that the goal of playing the game without substantial interruption is the top priority. They'd rather live with a decision that went differently than they expect (or even understand) than bog down the game with incessant negotiations.
We're playing that second type of game. I came in with that bias, and with the exception of you everyone has seemed pretty comfortable with it.

FWIW, IMO you're setting up two false dichotomies. One between two kinds of games, when in fact there are many possible social contracts, goal of play and distributions of credibility. The second between "focusing on telling the story" and "demanding accountability from the GM". It's perfectly possible to focus on the story without handing final authority over rules over to the GM, so it doesn't follow from said focus, that "the GM will interpret the rules". All the expectations about player behavior you mention do not follow "naturally" either and certainly it doesn't follow that the GM is not expected to explain his or her rulings. These things obviously _can_ be agreed upon, but don't follow from a specific "kind of game" or the "focus on telling the story".
So, to me this looks like a communication failure, where both sides understood "focus on telling the story" to mean different things, and since neither interpretation is "obviously" or "naturally" correct I'd say it's a simple misunderstanding.

[captain_bateson]

Callan,

Hmm. I'm trying to understand the practical implementation of what you are saying. When I felt the gentleman's agreement (to follow the rules) had been broken, what should I have done, in your estimation? I did ask for the GM to reconsider his ruling before I started getting into the specifics of the rules that had been broken. When you say:

If they DO NOT, no amount of talking/bickering about rules will make a difference.

do you mean that I should have just walked away as soon as I felt the agreement had been broken? Or should I have just made the argument that we had agreed to go by the rules and I felt that agreement had been broken (which I did make but didn't work)?

If you, by your view, I should have just walked away as soon as the gentleman's agreement was broken, you're probably right. I certainly considered it. It just seemed a bit rash to give up on the game so easily.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Re: the GM's post: As can be noted in the excerpt quoted, the GM assumed a contract with the players that he had never actually put forward. He was enforcing this contract ex post facto as a justification for not explaining breaking the earlier contract to follow the rules. As I was unaware of this assumed contract, it having never been stated, I had never agreed to it. I had, however, consented to the contract to obey the rules scrupulously.

So, what rights does the player have when the GM tries to enforce an assumed contract ex post facto to avoid explaining a violation of an existing contract? Does the player, once again, have to just walk away from the game? Doesn't the player have some ownership, some right to expect the GM not to make up new contracts midstream that, ex post facto, allow him or her to break existing contracts?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Captain, your discussion of "rights" is a bit weird to read, for me. I look at role-playing very much like playing music in a band, socially and creatively speaking.*

With that analogy in mind, there are no "rights." Referring to them is like ... well, it's like talking about who has the right to interrupt. No one does, and everyone does, or some do and some don't, depending on the circumstances. The concept of "rights" simply doesn't apply.

Does that cast us into a relativist universe in which whatever anyone wants is OK, and everyone else has to like it or go find their own corner of the universe? Are there no standards anywhere?

Nah, I don't think it's that squishy. I think that people in other social and creative activities arrive at meaningful accords, in order to get the work (or "work") done and in order to enjoy themselves. People bowl together, they play music together, and they manage to organize potlucks without always being in full-agreement vs. schism thinking.

That accord is what we tend to call Social Contract 'round here. I suggest that you folks simply didn't have one, in part because of the medium (on-line play very often fizzles, I think largely due to a variety of inadequacies in the social circumstances), and in part because role-players tend, in my view, to apply a number of social fallacies into their hobby, first among them being that the other people involved must automatically be working from some kind of universal and known accord.

Best,
Ron

* "So are we using sheet-music, Ron? And who's the conductor?" "It's a social and creative analogy, not a 1:1 detail analogy. Work with me here."