Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I consistently find myself in rules disputes with my opponents and tempers can flare. I have to wonder, does this game require a third gamer as the referee? That's how my two friends and I got into the hobby (often with me as the mission creator and rules master). What do you think? Does it help the game to have a disinterested party making the calls on the rules?

technically the gamestore owner/manager is the DM. If this is a home game then try to work out obscure rules before the game begins.

If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

That said, having a 3rd person (or several) there to act as referee(s) can be very helpful.

A disinterested party is a pain in the butt hole.

But a dungeon master sounds like a good idea. I've played in the store when rules disputes were solved by asking a staff member. He made some wrong calls but that's not important. It was great to get a quick decision.

The most important thing really is to not be so invested in the game that tempers flare. Rules disputed should be solved in the moment by rolling for it and looking it up after the game. Looking things up during the game should be reserved for when both parties don't know the rules.

Dungeon Masters in 40k need to be equipped with a Power Fist. There's always some rules lawyer purposely distorting the definition of English words to mean something they don't actually believe and thinking that it armors him against retaliation. It's then that he deserves an S10 attack to prove him wrong.

That is an incredibly disingenuous and terrible way to deal with rules issues - and yet one I see so often. This is the very reason we have rules disputes: because one side decides that the answer is "obvious" and that anyone who disagrees must be some sort of malevolent donkey-cave.

If you're so all-knowing, how about going to YMDC and clearing up with everyone exactly what a "Psyker Unit" is and whether a psyker can or cannot use as many powers as they want. Oh wait, you can't.

I remember people swore up and down that Deff-Rollas could not be used in conjunction with a Ram attack back in 5th edition. It was nearly a 50/50 split if I recall the poll from back then. Turns out they were wrong - so I guess that makes 50% of Dakka "some rules lawyer purposely distorting the meaning of English words to mean something only a simple child with down syndrome would believe".

I don't think the game requires a referee outside of a tournament. If it does you're doing it wrong I bet. The idea of a Dungeon Master though? That could be kind of cool, maybe he draws objectives and introduces plot elements? Perhaps even write campaigns and mix tabletop with pen and paper?

Isn't planetary empires supposed to introduce campaign style elements?

 Xca|iber wrote:


That is an incredibly disingenuous and terrible way to deal with rules issues - and yet one I see so often. This is the very reason we have rules disputes: because one side decides that the answer is "obvious" and that anyone who disagrees must be some sort of malevolent donkey-cave.

If you're so all-knowing, how about going to YMDC and clearing up with everyone exactly what a "Psyker Unit" is and whether a psyker can or cannot use as many powers as they want. Oh wait, you can't.

I remember people swore up and down that Deff-Rollas could not be used in conjunction with a Ram attack back in 5th edition. It was nearly a 50/50 split if I recall the poll from back then. Turns out they were wrong - so I guess that makes 50% of Dakka "some rules lawyer purposely distorting the meaning of English words to mean something only a simple child with down syndrome would believe".

Very much do I agree with you. OH THE RULES ARE WRITTEN SO CLEARLY, STOP TRYING TO DESTROY THE FUN OF THE GAME

7th just dropped, and there is a lot of things up in the air at the moment, and a precedent on how we proceed for a lot of rules clashes is not there. People see different interactions between the rules and interpret it different. How come the other guy on the end of the rules debate has to be the one twisting the English language - maybe it's you.

Need? No, there is nothing two mature people with basic human communication skills cannot figure out easily... that said it's actually fun to have a GM run certain aspects of the game, like terrain and objectives for example.

I have found that getting someone who has never played a wargame before to set up the terrain works very well. You don't realise how much of a rut you have got yourself into until you see something totally different.

The newbie is less likely to think about deployment zones, fire corridoors, spaces for tanks or cover for troops. They're more likely to make a forest over here and a city over there with some craters next to the most badly ruined buildings.

It's usually more challenging to fight over with different kinds of fighting happening in different parts of the board.

Luckily for me I only play casual games with people I know well, so I can't imagine a situation where an arbiter would be required.

I would say that if you are running into situations where a neutral party is needed for tempers to stay even, those are opponents you are best not playing against, however desperate for a game you are, if they are not mature enough to handle playing a game without arguments happening that can't be agreed upon.

Rogue Trader used to have a GM, to set up the general theme of a game and run third-party NPC's.

Xca|iber wrote:If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

Yes, if only GW weren't so evil you wouldn't have to actually have a conversation about things with your opponent. To bad they came just so very close, yet failed. How insidious.

Anyways, you already have a mechanic for dealing with rules disputes. Several, in fact, from FAQs to 4+ to actually talking with people. Having a third party is just fine as well. We used to handle things sort of by polling - you ask the room and people huddle on it for a moment or someone just knows the FAQ, or whatever. We also had a sort of person that we, by default would ask. The funny part is that his grasp of the rules was somewhat tenuous, but he also hosted the leagues most of the time, so as organizer, we all just sort of agreed that he had the say.

As for a real, honest to goodness dungeon master, I'd say yes. 40k is more of an RPG with more than usual numbers of minis and less of a strategy game. RPGs benefit from DMs, so does 40k. That doesn't make them strictly necessary (you can play an RPG without a GM), but it makes them better.

IIRC he original rules had a Gamemaster to set up terrain, make arbitrary judgments, etc.

A 3rd person helps a lot.

IIRC he original rules had a Gamemaster to set up terrain, make arbitrary judgments, etc.

Yes, that was Rogue Trader. Although the GM was mostly just strongly recommended. Lots of people just played one-on-one, and just solved rules disputes in an agreeable fashion.

 SHUPPET wrote:
How come the other guy on the end of the rules debate has to be the one twisting the English language - maybe it's you.

Because it's my store. Also because he's driving away customers from the most lucrative product we stock.

I've tried a few games where I set up scenarios for two friends to battle it out for. To avoid becoming disinterested I included some non-player models in the board that I had control over (though they had specifically programmed behaviors that I could not override).

Also, you can do some cool stuff with co-op if you have a GM. Not just a 2 vs. 1 game, but a more proper version where the GM has a bunch of secret stuff they can do, and the two players have different objectives, etc.

 Ailaros wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

Yes, if only GW weren't so evil you wouldn't have to actually have a conversation about things with your opponent. To bad they came just so very close, yet failed. How insidious.

No reason to be so hostile, buddy. I never claimed it was intentional - just lazy.

Besides, it's not like we are incapable of ignoring the little rules mistakes or sweep confusing things under the rug from time to time - my group did that all the time. It's when the outcome will have a significant impact on the game that "just 4+ it" doesn't really work. For example, I've had games where (unbeknownst to us) my opponent and I interpreted a rule quite differently. But by the time any confusion came up, we both had made a number of decisions that hinged upon our interpretation of that rule. So a 4+ roll at that point would basically determine the outcome of the game, which is not fun for either of us. It's like playing with a roll to end the game after the first turn - abrupt, unsatisfying and horribly narrative breaking.

Actually in that specific situation rolling for it really is the only fair way to go. One of you is going to lose the ruling anyway so why argue over it. You shouldn't be so invested in the game that it would ruin your day and your opponent is supposed to be your friend. Victory via a rule mixup is a hollow one indeed. The game is already ruined. Better to save tempers and bad feelings and roll a dice, or be the bigger man and rule in his favour for this game. Like I said, the game is already ruined.

 cfoley wrote:
Actually in that specific situation rolling for it really is the only fair way to go. One of you is going to lose the ruling anyway so why argue over it. You shouldn't be so invested in the game that it would ruin your day and your opponent is supposed to be your friend. Victory via a rule mixup is a hollow one indeed. The game is already ruined. Better to save tempers and bad feelings and roll a dice, or be the bigger man and rule in his favour for this game. Like I said, the game is already ruined.

That was my point. It really shouldn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances, because nobody feels good afterwards. Now we have a lot more general house-rules to deal with these things, but when it does come up we usually play one turn after in case something miraculous occurs then just call it.

It especially sucks when playing with friends because I don't want to feel like we wasted 2 hours only to say "oops, game over". My group also really likes discussing games and tactics afterwards to see what worked and what didn't - you know, just general self-improvement stuff. But it's hard to discuss a game when one person says "I guess I got outplayed because we randomly went with your interpretation instead of mine".

It's not necessary, but when we can (ie. when more than two people show up for a games afternoon) we have another player set up the board before the game starts, not knowing who is going on which side ect.

In the event of a dispute, step 1 is to apply logic, and work out what 'should' happen. If that doesn't work, we call for an impartial decision from another player (as in, show them all the rules interacting, they make the call, we go with it either way) and if that fails we roll a 4+. I can't think of a time where a rule has delayed the game by more than 60 seconds.

 Ailaros wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

Yes, if only GW weren't so evil you wouldn't have to actually have a conversation about things with your opponent. To bad they came just so very close, yet failed. How insidious.

Nothing wrong with a Little conversation as long as its productive, but when your left with bikering about a fuzzy rule thats bendable and stretchable and not clearly defined.

 cfoley wrote:
Actually in that specific situation rolling for it really is the only fair way to go. One of you is going to lose the ruling anyway so why argue over it. You shouldn't be so invested in the game that it would ruin your day and your opponent is supposed to be your friend. Victory via a rule mixup is a hollow one indeed. The game is already ruined. Better to save tempers and bad feelings and roll a dice, or be the bigger man and rule in his favour for this game. Like I said, the game is already ruined.

So, what do you think is the bigger problem? Arguing about unclear rules, or having a game ruined due to unclear rules?

From my perspective arguing about anything that is supposed to be fun is worse. (Unless the debate is part of the fun like on a forum -- i.e. here)

Does a ruined game ruin the afternoon too? Not if I've spent an enjoyable few hours with my friends.

The game is a vehicle for fun, that's all. It's the attitude of the players that makes or breaks the afternoon.

 Xca|iber wrote:
If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

That said, having a 3rd person (or several) there to act as referee(s) can be very helpful.

No matter how well-written rules are, people are different by nature and so is their way to interprete things. Law is this way.

As long as we use any language different than math for rules or very "simple" languages (such as the ones used for programming languages, where everything is finite to an extent), any rule book written in English, Spanish or whatever language is going to have loopholes or different interpretations. <-- And those are boring and not for the average joe


FAQs are our friends. And asking for GW to work harder is what we can do.


Cheers

 Gunzhard wrote:
Need? No, there is nothing two mature people with basic human communication skills cannot figure out easily... that said it's actually fun to have a GM run certain aspects of the game, like terrain and objectives for example.

I really enjoy this, as when I play at home, if there's a third person available, we generally ask them to set out terrain for us and/or play ref to help us keep everything straight or to help look stuff up. I've asked randoms to set up terrain for my games at my store and don't mind being a ref for people if they ask. It's nice having someone with no stake on the outcome take a look at the situation from a different angle or just add to the overall knowledge.

Sometimes it's also nice just to include people in your game by asking them to throw down some shrubs.

teban wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
If the rules were written more clearly, and if GW went to a tiny bit more effort to convey intent to their audience, a GM/DM would not be necessary at all.

That said, having a 3rd person (or several) there to act as referee(s) can be very helpful.

No matter how well-written rules are, people are different by nature and so is their way to interprete things. Law is this way.

As long as we use any language different than math for rules or very "simple" languages (such as the ones used for programming languages, where everything is finite to an extent), any rule book written in English, Spanish or whatever language is going to have loopholes or different interpretations. <-- And those are boring and not for the average joe

Magic: The Gathering has proven you wrong. There is absolutely no way to interpret magic rules, there is never a situation where the rules do not exactly tell you what to do. If magic with their 20,000+ distinct game pieces can do it, Warhammer40k with their couple hundred can do it as well.

It's just a matter of effort and expertise.

Personally I think if you're at the point where you need a DM to make the game work you should play a game with clearer/better rules.

If you enjoy the narrative aspect and want a GM there then there are 40k RPGs that are worth a serious look because even if they don't allow you the same kind of control over your army as in 40k playing Black Crusade and RPing out a battle as a warlord is a much better 'narrative' experience imo.



Also I'd just like to add that 'the rules will never be perfect' is a dumb argument. Very few things will ever be perfect but that should never stop anyone from trying to make something good.

Actually, a DM can be interesting for all games; having someone more "objective" can be useful to play different ways, like for example hidden victory conditions that aren't just total randmo or events unknown to the players happening during the game.

A good DM knows that rules are just a tool - and like all tools, they can be changed if not useful for that situation.

Besides, to play, you don't need the "new" rules to play with a DM. Since someone takes care of the job of "game mastering", you only need to use the rules he told you to use. That's the trick; GW makes us pay a lot of money for badly written rules but tell us to do whatever we want to "Forge the Narrative" or just having fun.

That's perfect. Just so you know...why even bother buying that kind of thing if we have to do it ourselves in the end?

So, the point of having a DM...is just not needing to use the 7th rules. Or even GW rules.

They were never really good, anyway.