Argument Arbitration Techniques? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Argument Arbitration Techniques? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TarlSS
07-21-06, 02:29 AM My group tends to argue alot. I mean, alot. At least 2 hours everygame is spent bickering over rules. It's generally good-natured, but it's tiresome because essentially two people are locked in doing something while everyone else just watches in silence.

How do you deal with arguing? I'm thinking of implementing a structured debate system.

An arguement is defined as calling a DM's ruling into question, as to be determined by the DM. No one is allowed to argue with what 'calling into question' actually means, that's up for the DM to decide. A rule of thumb is that once rulebooks are referenced, an arguement has occured.

Anyone can declare an argument is an in progress by calling "Arbitrage!" Every player can call Arbitrage once every hour, and the DM can call Arbitrage an unlimited amount of times.

The rules of arbitrage are thus. After Arbitrage is declared, each side may deliver his argument in only one minute, even the DM. Anyone can chime in, adding one minute of commentary. After that, the DM will decide on the ruling, with no further commentary.

Variants include having the players vote on the ruling, tweaking the amounts of time on Arbitrage, and limiting the amounts of times the DM can declare Arbitrage.

This is not a DM vs. Players solution, intended to support on party or another. Just a modular argument resolution system for groups who tend to argue alot.

I realize that if everyone declared Arbitrage constantly, there would be little time to play. The idea is that Arbitrage recognizes arguments as disruptive, and keeps parties from getting carried away.
It can be easily abused, but the virtue is that abuses of Arbitrage are easy to spot, and deprive everyone of gametime. No one wins by abusing the system.

If you see that your game time is being eaten up by structured debates, you will be less inclined to call them.

Thoughts?
Mystyc
07-21-06, 02:42 AM Having any system is an excellent step. As long as eveyone agrees to the terms, it will probably be a big time-saver, and yours looks just as good as any.

One of the good facets of your system is that it officially recognizes the arguments as disruptive. However, if you want to speed things up even a little more, you could try this:

When a conflict on rules arises and nobody can point immediately to the ruling in the books, the DM gets the first say. If he knows the rule or knows how he wants the rule to go, he says so. Game over.

If the DM is unsure, it goes to the table with a simple raised-hand vote. If the result is more than one vote away from 50/50, the majority decides it. If it is within one vote, a d20 roll-off decides it.

Regardless of the outcome (even a decision by DM fiat), the dispute is noted on a piece of paper/index card/whatever. A designated player looks up the actual rules for that circumstance after the session (or during a break) and informs the rest of the group. When the circumstance comes up again, everyone will know the rules.

There's less formal recognition of disruption, but it happens faster. Either the DM says, "this is how it is" or "okay, vote on it." Ten seconds later, you're playing again. It also provides for eventually settling the debate "for real." (That clause should probably be a part of any system, actually.)
Renvale999
07-21-06, 08:36 AM The DM is always right, period, dot...end of story.

On a lighter note lol, if I was you I would save the arguements for after the game, otherwise your missing out on a good time. Or simply have everyone read the Players handbook and have the DM tell everyone what rules he's changing and/or throwing out....that way no more arguements....

Just my two cp.
TarlSS
07-21-06, 10:01 AM That's the ideal way things work. It certainly doesn't when everyone has done as you said and either ignores it, disagrees with it or doesn't understand.

It's not that they misunderstand this "DM is right" thing, it's that they simply don't care. Not much your argument can help with that.

Many people are of the camp that the DM is NOT always right, and there is little to do in persuading them. And even if they say they believe that, arguments still crop up. If it's a case of tossing them out or keeping them, I'd like to try to keep them while finding a solution to arguments.
Leilond
07-21-06, 10:15 AM I've a player like that and I resolved like this

NO debate are admitted DURING the game. Every attempt to do it will recive a simple "shut up until the end of the session".
A the end of the session or at the beginning of the next we can talk and if I feel that i made a mistake I will give the damaged character all they deserve
If character die for this error I will give back the char and the level loss if any
If an item is lost I will give back the item
And so on
But if in the end I feel I'm right, then I'm right. I'm the DM and I work hours and hours for the fun of all... I deserve that the things are like I think is better they are

This worked perfectly.
The guy stopped to rant during game after two or three "shut up until the end of session" and started to read the manuals from a session to another so that when we talk about rules at the beginning of the session he can point me exactly the manuals and not "I remember that"
Now no problem AT ALL during game
rhflyweyr
07-21-06, 11:18 AM DM makes a ruling... if you want to look up and find the rule, we will make the note for the next time it comes up.
Bob Loblaw
07-21-06, 12:03 PM As DM, the way I handle all arguments is simple: you have a brief moment to argue your case, after which Imake a ruling that stands until after this session. You may then continue your argument via phone, email, or in person. I will listen to everything, and even provide rebuttals. By the next session I will provide my new official answer that stands. The only exception to this is when your character's life is in jeopardy (I mean that his life/death rides on this exact rule). In this case, I will take a little more time but even then, we will go back to the standards set forth earlier.
kelvinaw273
07-21-06, 02:13 PM I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about.
LordofIllusions
07-21-06, 02:22 PM I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about.

If a player wants to spend more time argueing and whining than playing D&D then they shall not be a player at my table for long. First rule argueing, which some extremely arguementative people like to call debating, is quite silly; especially when noone cares what you have to say(suprisingly arguementative people never seem to get this) and the DM is lining his steel-toed boots up with your rear end.

~~~
TarlSS
07-21-06, 03:55 PM Well. I see from your signature LoI, that your opinion is unbiased and that it comes from deeply seated thought and not frustration and fatigue against people who seem to have taken advantage of you through arguing.

That aside, I'm not of the camp that believes in summarily rejecting people who brace a little against rule 0. It's a problem because these people are my friends, and frankly it's a very valid viewpoint.

There are DMs out there that are simply very bad. They don't know the mechanics, they aren't good at writing, they aren't well educated and they have foul tempers. Rule 0 is too much like tenor, keeping the bad in with the good.

I don't actually agree it's an effective way to conduct business, it's just that I understand the viewpoint.

I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about.

See. This is my problem. You quote the rule 0, yet you admit to argueing in game. And you say 'at the end of the day'. I don't want to wait until the end of the day for you to establish authority over someone with a silver tongue that makes you look like a fool.

Arbitrage establishes a time limit for this nonsense and a system to deal with it immediately.
It also provides a resolution system for those people outside of the dispute to make those parties recognize that it -is- an arguement without having to come up with some even more lengthy diatribe about how the arguement is an arguement and the game is slowing down.

You people seem to think I'm -for- arguing with the DM. I'm not. This is a simple recognition that there are people out there who despise absolutes and ignore strictures like "The DM is always right" and that you cannot summarily toss them away without bad blood.
A system that is agreed upon and gives everyone a seemingly fair chance is going to cause less problems then someone who boils away and explodes during an incredibly small arguement.

This is an effort to acknowledge the reality of gaming and group dynamics, rather than continually appealing to ideals that simply cannot be implemented.
Archmage Atrus
07-21-06, 04:38 PM Here's how I like to handle it:

A DM makes a call and Player A says "That's not how it's done!". The DM now either has the choice of asking the Player for backup evidence (IE, "how is it done?") in the rules, or simply saying "We'll discuss it later" and go on from there. Note that it's important that this questioning be an actual rules issue, and not something esoteric that can't be answered by the rules. If this is your problem, simply point out that it's a game, it's fiction, nobody (but the argumentor) cares, and you're calling it the way you feel it should be called and that the discussion can be had later without eating up game time.

Now, you have the relevant rule on hand. It's in black and white text. Good rule of thumb: If a rule doesn't say something happens, likelier than not it doesn't happen. If a rule says you can't do X, hey, guess what, you can't do X. If the rule can't be figured out by looking at the basic rule definition, simply make a call that's favorable to whomever is taking the action, and if there are further objections you'll hear them during the food break or after the game. But always, ALWAYS, have a player ready to interject with actual evidence - RULES evidence, not anecdotal evidence - because it will make things easier and smoother for everyone.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TarlSS 07-21-06, 02:29 AM	My group tends to argue alot. I mean, alot. At least 2 hours everygame is spent bickering over rules. It's generally good-natured, but it's tiresome because essentially two people are locked in doing something while everyone else just watches in silence. How do you deal with arguing? I'm thinking of implementing a structured debate system. An arguement is defined as calling a DM's ruling into question, as to be determined by the DM. No one is allowed to argue with what 'calling into question' actually means, that's up for the DM to decide. A rule of thumb is that once rulebooks are referenced, an arguement has occured. Anyone can declare an argument is an in progress by calling "Arbitrage!" Every player can call Arbitrage once every hour, and the DM can call Arbitrage an unlimited amount of times. The rules of arbitrage are thus. After Arbitrage is declared, each side may deliver his argument in only one minute, even the DM. Anyone can chime in, adding one minute of commentary. After that, the DM will decide on the ruling, with no further commentary. Variants include having the players vote on the ruling, tweaking the amounts of time on Arbitrage, and limiting the amounts of times the DM can declare Arbitrage. This is not a DM vs. Players solution, intended to support on party or another. Just a modular argument resolution system for groups who tend to argue alot. I realize that if everyone declared Arbitrage constantly, there would be little time to play. The idea is that Arbitrage recognizes arguments as disruptive, and keeps parties from getting carried away. It can be easily abused, but the virtue is that abuses of Arbitrage are easy to spot, and deprive everyone of gametime. No one wins by abusing the system. If you see that your game time is being eaten up by structured debates, you will be less inclined to call them. Thoughts?
Mystyc 07-21-06, 02:42 AM	Having any system is an excellent step. As long as eveyone agrees to the terms, it will probably be a big time-saver, and yours looks just as good as any. One of the good facets of your system is that it officially recognizes the arguments as disruptive. However, if you want to speed things up even a little more, you could try this: When a conflict on rules arises and nobody can point immediately to the ruling in the books, the DM gets the first say. If he knows the rule or knows how he wants the rule to go, he says so. Game over. If the DM is unsure, it goes to the table with a simple raised-hand vote. If the result is more than one vote away from 50/50, the majority decides it. If it is within one vote, a d20 roll-off decides it. Regardless of the outcome (even a decision by DM fiat), the dispute is noted on a piece of paper/index card/whatever. A designated player looks up the actual rules for that circumstance after the session (or during a break) and informs the rest of the group. When the circumstance comes up again, everyone will know the rules. There's less formal recognition of disruption, but it happens faster. Either the DM says, "this is how it is" or "okay, vote on it." Ten seconds later, you're playing again. It also provides for eventually settling the debate "for real." (That clause should probably be a part of any system, actually.)
Renvale999 07-21-06, 08:36 AM	The DM is always right, period, dot...end of story. On a lighter note lol, if I was you I would save the arguements for after the game, otherwise your missing out on a good time. Or simply have everyone read the Players handbook and have the DM tell everyone what rules he's changing and/or throwing out....that way no more arguements.... Just my two cp.
TarlSS 07-21-06, 10:01 AM	That's the ideal way things work. It certainly doesn't when everyone has done as you said and either ignores it, disagrees with it or doesn't understand. It's not that they misunderstand this "DM is right" thing, it's that they simply don't care. Not much your argument can help with that. Many people are of the camp that the DM is NOT always right, and there is little to do in persuading them. And even if they say they believe that, arguments still crop up. If it's a case of tossing them out or keeping them, I'd like to try to keep them while finding a solution to arguments.
Leilond 07-21-06, 10:15 AM	I've a player like that and I resolved like this NO debate are admitted DURING the game. Every attempt to do it will recive a simple "shut up until the end of the session". A the end of the session or at the beginning of the next we can talk and if I feel that i made a mistake I will give the damaged character all they deserve If character die for this error I will give back the char and the level loss if any If an item is lost I will give back the item And so on But if in the end I feel I'm right, then I'm right. I'm the DM and I work hours and hours for the fun of all... I deserve that the things are like I think is better they are This worked perfectly. The guy stopped to rant during game after two or three "shut up until the end of session" and started to read the manuals from a session to another so that when we talk about rules at the beginning of the session he can point me exactly the manuals and not "I remember that" Now no problem AT ALL during game
rhflyweyr 07-21-06, 11:18 AM	DM makes a ruling... if you want to look up and find the rule, we will make the note for the next time it comes up.
Bob Loblaw 07-21-06, 12:03 PM	As DM, the way I handle all arguments is simple: you have a brief moment to argue your case, after which Imake a ruling that stands until after this session. You may then continue your argument via phone, email, or in person. I will listen to everything, and even provide rebuttals. By the next session I will provide my new official answer that stands. The only exception to this is when your character's life is in jeopardy (I mean that his life/death rides on this exact rule). In this case, I will take a little more time but even then, we will go back to the standards set forth earlier.
kelvinaw273 07-21-06, 02:13 PM	I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about.
LordofIllusions 07-21-06, 02:22 PM	I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about. If a player wants to spend more time argueing and whining than playing D&D then they shall not be a player at my table for long. First rule argueing, which some extremely arguementative people like to call debating, is quite silly; especially when noone cares what you have to say(suprisingly arguementative people never seem to get this) and the DM is lining his steel-toed boots up with your rear end. ~~~
TarlSS 07-21-06, 03:55 PM	Well. I see from your signature LoI, that your opinion is unbiased and that it comes from deeply seated thought and not frustration and fatigue against people who seem to have taken advantage of you through arguing. That aside, I'm not of the camp that believes in summarily rejecting people who brace a little against rule 0. It's a problem because these people are my friends, and frankly it's a very valid viewpoint. There are DMs out there that are simply very bad. They don't know the mechanics, they aren't good at writing, they aren't well educated and they have foul tempers. Rule 0 is too much like tenor, keeping the bad in with the good. I don't actually agree it's an effective way to conduct business, it's just that I understand the viewpoint. I see your mistake at once ... "Arbitrage". If I am DM, then I make a ruling and move on. If a plyer wants to argue that isn't my problem, it is theirs. If they have a really good point I may relent, but at the end of the day I am DM, not them, and endless discussion are not what the game is about. See. This is my problem. You quote the rule 0, yet you admit to argueing in game. And you say 'at the end of the day'. I don't want to wait until the end of the day for you to establish authority over someone with a silver tongue that makes you look like a fool. Arbitrage establishes a time limit for this nonsense and a system to deal with it immediately. It also provides a resolution system for those people outside of the dispute to make those parties recognize that it -is- an arguement without having to come up with some even more lengthy diatribe about how the arguement is an arguement and the game is slowing down. You people seem to think I'm -for- arguing with the DM. I'm not. This is a simple recognition that there are people out there who despise absolutes and ignore strictures like "The DM is always right" and that you cannot summarily toss them away without bad blood. A system that is agreed upon and gives everyone a seemingly fair chance is going to cause less problems then someone who boils away and explodes during an incredibly small arguement. This is an effort to acknowledge the reality of gaming and group dynamics, rather than continually appealing to ideals that simply cannot be implemented.
Archmage Atrus 07-21-06, 04:38 PM	Here's how I like to handle it: A DM makes a call and Player A says "That's not how it's done!". The DM now either has the choice of asking the Player for backup evidence (IE, "how is it done?") in the rules, or simply saying "We'll discuss it later" and go on from there. Note that it's important that this questioning be an actual rules issue, and not something esoteric that can't be answered by the rules. If this is your problem, simply point out that it's a game, it's fiction, nobody (but the argumentor) cares, and you're calling it the way you feel it should be called and that the discussion can be had later without eating up game time. Now, you have the relevant rule on hand. It's in black and white text. Good rule of thumb: If a rule doesn't say something happens, likelier than not it doesn't happen. If a rule says you can't do X, hey, guess what, you can't do X. If the rule can't be figured out by looking at the basic rule definition, simply make a call that's favorable to whomever is taking the action, and if there are further objections you'll hear them during the food break or after the game. But always, ALWAYS, have a player ready to interject with actual evidence - RULES evidence, not anecdotal evidence - because it will make things easier and smoother for everyone.