Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Callista 12-03-04, 10:45 PM	Before I write anything else, I'm gonna cast several defensive spells on myself... There, done. At any rate, today while I was having dinner with a bunch of my friends, a fellow D&D player came up to me and told me that everyone was really annoyed with my pointing it out whenever they weren't following the PHB/DMG rules. In my group, I've probably read the core books through more than anyone else (out of about 15 people). (I've DMed a bit, too--6-7 sessions--so my reading the DMG and MM was quite necessary.) At any rate, often times my group's DM or players will make mistakes: For example, the first time one of the DMs used a swarm (spiders, in this case), he didn't apply either the automatic damage, the 10-foot coverage, or the reduced weapon damage. I pointed this out--perhaps I shouldn't have; but in any case, what's done is done. Other things have happened too, like my pointing out to a fellow player that it is possible, if inadvisible and with penalties, to shoot an arrow at an opponent in front of you even if there is an ally between you and them... It seems most of my group has much less interest in playing a balanced game than I do; treasure is maybe 10 times what it ought to be, and players are so overpowered for their levels that the DMs have to customize monsters to challenge them without killing them. I guess I'm just not that sort of person; when I DM, treasure is at the level it ought to be at (according to the DMG) or a little higher, and I usually spend at least a quarter of my preparation time brushing up on whatever special strategies and qualities my monsters might have (like Swarms, for example). And, sure, I know Rule 0; but when the DM says things are the way they are due to not knowing the way things ought to be, and not because s/he's taking artistic license, it kind of grinds on my nerves. So it's natural that, with the difference between our styles, I'll want to correct my fellow players when they don't play the way they "ought" to. But, according to at least one player, it's annoying. On top of that, the player who mentioned this to me (finally! Honestly, I wish they'd tell me I was annoying them... I had no idea!) has recently decided to quit the campaign I'm DMing. She pleads Finals week and many projects. I hope she's telling the truth... Any advice?
Dreaming_in_the_void 12-03-04, 11:16 PM	You've just been dispelled :devil: The rules are there for a reason, to resolve disputes. Initially I would say if there is no dispute, don't muck around with the rules, but like you I appreciate things running smoothly and according to more or less predicatable patters. (lawful much?) The game has been, ostensibly, tested to ensure fairness. Even if everything isn't perfect, you can at least rely on the RAW to ensure everyone is on the same page. Like a vacation, this sort of itenerary makes sure we're all doing the same thing, even if the rogue would prefer to skip the tour of the police station and the mage would happily pass on the anti-magic zones. Variance from the RAW creates problems in my experience (see a recent post on a book of feats in the DM forum if you're so inclined) because consitancy and predictability becomes difficult to achieve as a DM. As a player, you want both consistancy and predictability so that your choices are both meaningful to the game and you can anticipate what results your chosen action will produce. Otherwise, things spiral out of control as you've seen with the wealthy uber-party you've described. I wonder if your group is more annoyed that you know and follow the rules, or that you argued for a particular rule that happened to bone them (making swarms more dangerous). They probably enjoy consistancy and predictability in the rules. They probably don't like thier enemies being any tougher than they have to be... if the DM goofs, aren't you supposed to be a bit of an opportunist as a player? :angel: Have you asked which is really burning thier bottoms?
kirsdarke 12-03-04, 11:17 PM	what happens, i believe is that your DM wont admit thwn he was wrong and will immediately pull the house rule card for it, to cover his tracks. honestly, U think you should stick with it and play a relaxed game. I do, and i have fun playing a swashbuckler.
Aeromus 12-03-04, 11:27 PM	This doesn't make you a rules lawyer, it means you read the books. A DM in my area is the same way really. Like when he tried to have his golem, grapple me, squeeze me, then fling me into a wall for 4d6 damage... Or he said I provoked to three people for a 5 foot step. Wouldn't let me tumble to reduce fall damage. Wouldn't let me craft a masterwork longsword, without paying XP. Said a 22hd dragon with 30 barbarian levels was ecl 36... Just makes me want to scream.
tec-9-7 12-04-04, 12:40 AM	Callista, I so see both sides here. My natural tendency is to want to follow the rules as closely as I'm able, as I like a predictable game. Unfortunately, 3.0/3.5 is really a little too rules-heavy for my taste ("Too many notes." - Know that reference?). The games, or at least the combats, seem to degenerate into a wierd contest of mother-may-I where the DM and players go thru these intricate dances to try to catch the other in a misstep, and when I'm running a game, the last thing I want to hear is how some plan I've come up with for a badguy won't work because a player more familiar w/ rules-intricacies anounces an AoO that cuts the badguy down - only to tell me afterward that if I'd only moved 5' to the left, it would have worked perfectly... All I can suggest is to go by the book as much as you want when you DM, but lay off the rules-lawyering when you're a player. As a DM that really irritates me. The proper time to do that is OOG, preferably in a private conversation.
ShadowDragon8685 12-04-04, 12:46 AM	The proper time to do that is IN-GAME. The rules are here for a reason. Otherwise you may as well just roleplay the fighting freeform. And if you, as the DM, can't follow the RAW (modified with whatever house rules have been accepted,) then you don't need to be DMing. If you forgot something, and the player reminds you, then you say your bad, and follow the RAW. Why? Because you are cheating if you don't. If your NPC is too stupid to avoid the AOO, he gets it in the shorts. If he's too stupid because you don't know how to battle, then you need to bone up on D&D fighting tactics.
tec-9-7 12-04-04, 12:53 AM	If he's too stupid because you don't know how to battle, then you need to bone up on D&D fighting tactics. I have a life. Once upon a time, I had nothing better to do than memorize rules and Monty Python dialogue - not so anymore. Fortunately there are many types of players and many types of games. Some DMs may not care if you argue rules with them in the middle of a game, I'm not one of those DMs. You don't like the way I do things in my game, fine - I don't attach any hooks to any asses when I run them.
Kadasbrass 12-04-04, 01:23 AM	Maybe you and them both need to see eye to eye. Now to understand my point you will have to read the whole message. Rule One, the rules are there for an reason. However, and this is an big one, the rules are nothing more then guidelines. No one ever completely knows all the rules, let me repharse that. It is nearly impossible to be one hundred percent familar with all rules. There is an "unofficial" standard by how far rules can be broken, and the standard requires your best judgement as player and DM. If it is something that completely unbalances the game, then its being abused, otherwise if its simple its more of an rule bend. Rules can be reasonaly bended, however if the rules are flat out broken that is something else. Because once broken, where is the line drawn? Now I'm an rules lawyer too, but I'm far from being an expert. Sometimes I'm corrected, sometimes I correct, and sometimes I just flat out ignore it. Just use your best judgement Rule Two, the game is merely an game, and the point of the game is to have fun. The game will lose its fun if there is continual arguing over rules. Try to reason with them. But don't point out every single detail. If its something you really need to go over, talk to an player after the game when no one else is listing and just let them know that what their doing isn't completely correct. People are more likely to agree when their not going to lose face. If their in an group and told their wrong, their more likely to figth, and figth harder against you. Rule Three, there is no rule three. Let me say this, I have to agree that the overpowered characters is an problem, maybe those characters need to be killed... Of course there plenty of ways to deal with them, stolen items, abilities dropped, have them face clones. You don't always have to follow the book by teasure and all that, but there should be an reasonable limit. Just remember the game is about having fun, too strong of rules or utter lack of them can destory the game. By either driving it out by force, or destorying the Challenge. And if theres no challenge, there no longer fun or an reason to play.
Lowly Scribe 12-04-04, 02:10 AM	The number of times I've pointed out a little 'intricacy' or infringement of the rules to the detriment of my fellow PC's almost certainly relegates me to that special circle of hell reserved for lawyers and various other despicable creatures ;) I think once you have become comfortable (ie. unhealthily intimate) with the rules, it's very difficult to stay quiet when someone does something that disregards/contradicts the core mechanic... I think it benefits everyone involved in the long run to 'adjudicate' when necessary, but just be willing to risk the wrath of those that result with injured pride or PCs. I know I am :)
Ut-Napishtim 12-04-04, 04:22 AM	On top of that, the player who mentioned this to me (finally! Honestly, I wish they'd tell me I was annoying them... I had no idea!) has recently decided to quit the campaign I'm DMing. She pleads Finals week and many projects. I hope she's telling the truth... Any advice? Oh yeah, that's a sure sign man. I once played in a campaign that was crap. It started out with about a dozen or so players, and after a couple weeks it was down to one as we all came up with our excuses that we couldn't play in it anymore. My guess would be that she's trying to be nice, of course the fact that they sent a spokesperson to confront you about it indicates that they at least enjoy your company - just not your penchant for strict rule enforcement. You can have a very good knowledge of the rules, and no idea of how to tell a story. You see, I also have a life and I admit I have not memorized the rulebooks, but when I DM and am not sure what the rules are for a particular situation is I just ask my players. A couple of them... well let's not use any derogatory terms here, suffice it to say they know the rules very well. I have also found that the most intense rules purists usually can't DM their way out of a wet paper bag. They can tell you what all of their NPC's abilities and Feats are by heart, but not where they live, what their family is like, or even why the heck they're bothering the party in the first place. In a nutshell it sounds like these guys would like you to sill play with them, but they'd prefer it if you toned down the rules bickering a little. You may be absolutely right - but it's possible to be absolutely right, and absolutely alone as well.
RogerWilco 12-04-04, 11:19 AM	I tend to know the rules pretty well too, and I try to adhere to a few principles: - Only bring up the point if you exactly know where to find the rule, so no time is lost finding it. (No: I believe that it should be a d8 not a d12, Yes: You'll find on page X that it states that you need to add the charisma modifier)* - When playing: Only bring up a rule to your fellow party members advantage.* Maybe edudate your DM afterwards. - When DM'ing: Only bring up a rule if it hurts the story you're telling. Maybe educate someone afterwards. *) Try not to disrupt the DM's story telling to much, see the third point. This does mean letting the rules slip sometimes, butthe game is mainly about roeplaying and story telling, never let the rules get in the way of that.
Death Unlimited 12-04-04, 12:06 PM	I am one of those middle ground people. I also like to follow the rules, and have pointed out rules at certain points...but as a DM, there are certain rules that I just can't, and won't, agree with. Those, i'll take care of. I tend to give treasure by level(i used to give too much, then i gave too little...i suffered from 'i got a rock!' DM syndrome for a bit). But the treasure by level rule is a good one I think for that reason, it prevents one or the other. But perhaps if I know the PCs are in for a hell of a time coming up(a quick example, in the campaign I am starting soon, there is a place that they may come across. If they enter, they are probably going to be there for awhile. Thus, i might bump some treasure up cos they won't be seeing daylight for a long time.) I like the 'if you know where the rule is, go for it' idea. That way the game doesnt slow down. If you don't remeember the book, just let your DM handle it(or play as is), and take care of it after. 3.5 ed is pretty fair rules wise I think. Like i said, there are a few that sort of irked me but they can be fixed. And... Too many notes. Would it be 'A young man trying to impress beyond his abilities...too much spice...' Amadeus? :D
nevcoup 12-04-04, 12:11 PM	This doesn't make you a rules lawyer, it means you read the books. A DM in my area is the same way really. Like when he tried to have his golem, grapple me, squeeze me, then fling me into a wall for 4d6 damage... Or he said I provoked to three people for a 5 foot step. Wouldn't let me tumble to reduce fall damage. Wouldn't let me craft a masterwork longsword, without paying XP. Said a 22hd dragon with 30 barbarian levels was ecl 36... Just makes me want to scream. The original poster does seem to be a rules-lawyer by any definition I am aware of. :whatsthis Maybe your DM is (in a pretty mean way) punishing your PC for your rules-lawyering. I say this because all of the rulings you complain of have to do with your PC being nerfed. Maybe the DM thinks you area rules-lawyer and does this to you on purpose. I know DM's who know the rules just fine, yet bend them when a player gets annoying.
tec-9-7 12-04-04, 12:38 PM	Amadeus? :D Bingo!
chrome_gnome 12-04-04, 12:40 PM	Well the game is supposed to be about about having fun. Problem is some people have more fun when the rules are not used as a weapon and other prefer to use the rules like one would moves in a chess game. These two types will always have trouble finding a happy medium. Our houserule for 20 odd years has been if something comes up during the game that is unclear it is up to the DM to determine how it works through rules, by simple decree or though a player vote. If there is a rule being used wrong or not being used at all it can only be made a point of contention AFTER the session is over to preserve continuity for the session. The DM should not be forced to explain why he is or isn't using a rule as you feel it should be during play as it could be for a good reason. After the session any good DM asks players what they thought of the session, asks them thier plans for next time to help him plan and asks if anyone has any questions or concerns about how the session was run. This is the time to bring up such matters so that they can be researched at liesure and an answer can be presented before the next session.
UltimateReality 12-04-04, 08:26 PM	I like the 'if you know where the rule is, go for it' idea. That way the game doesnt slow down. If you don't remeember the book, just let your DM handle it(or play as is), and take care of it after. I'm actually interested in this thread as there are a couple of budding whiners (note: not rules lawyers) in our group...basically the DM has kindly asked everyone with a rules dispute to wait til a break, and that if he makes a major oops that results in a TPK he will rewind and do again. One player is still prone to arguing over it in combat though. OTOH, having three people reach for their own PHB at the same time tends to speed up the search for the exact page of the ruling. :) One thing to watch is if you are only pointing out rules detrimental to the group, or rules beneficial to them too. I would ask the DM what he/she thinks, and that other player that confronted you? I'd ask her if she came of her own volition or if the whole group feels the same way. You seem to have taken what she said pretty healthily, so if you approach her in that manner she may just be honest with you. As for finals=no D&D, that could very well be the case. I'm considering calling off D&D all this month, as the DM and I both have a full courseload of them. My education comes before the game, sorry. And then if you stack the holiday season on top of it all...well, yeah, D&D can quickly become another thing you have to fit in to your overpacked schedule.
trapspringer 12-04-04, 09:06 PM	If the players complain, tell them to jump of a cliff. If the DM complains, apologize and stop.
KhanJackalMoreau 12-05-04, 02:21 AM	Bwah. There's something I think being lost in translation here. I've played with morons before. Dumb, dumb people. The kind of people who believe that "a +1 gives you a plus 1 on damage, to hit, and increases your critical range by one." That's right. A +5 weapon adds 5 to your crit range. INSANE. That's INSANE. But the GM and his friends liked killing things. That's all they did. They sat around, and rolled huge damage to smash Orcs. Every. Single. Session. It's what they dug. So I quit. But that doesn't mean they weren't playing D&D POORLY. If at all. They were dropping the ball on that whole "not being stupid" thing. Just becuase a GM rules something doesn't mean it's not dumb. If your GM gives his brother-in-law a +1561 longsword of hackery, and all the other guys in the group shrug and move on, it's still not cool.
PhaedrusXY 12-05-04, 03:04 AM	It drives me crazy trying to game with a group where the DM shows a very poor understanding of the rules, also. If the players don't know the rules very well, it's one thing. But the DM should be there to interpret what they say they want to do, and help them do it according to the rules. When the DM has a poor grasp of the rules, the game really breaks down into some make believe story time where everything happens a certain way "just because" the DM says so, and it drives me nuts. If I wanted to read someone else's made up story, I'd buy a book. I want to participate in the story, and you can't really do that without a rules system and a DM who sees their job as just mainly setting up the background and dropping some plot hooks, and letting the players interact with it as they see fit. If I'm playing in a game where the DM doesn't know the rules, I can either sit there and go crazy internally and wince at everything that both players and DM are screwing up, or I can say something. If I don't say anything, I generally have a miserable time because I feel like I was cheated and it was a bad game. If I say too much, I annoy everyone else. So I try to avoid games with DMs who don't know the rules well, and also try to curb myself and not nitpick at every little screw up in the games I do play in. Also, different DMs have greatly varying degrees of tolerance for Ruleslawyering, I've found. Some of them turn red in the face because you've embarrassed them, and decide they need to "teach you a lesson", or something equally ridiculous. However, I have also seen some who, once they understand that you DO have a very strong grasp of the rules and aren't just a bossy jackass, will actually not take it personally if you correct them, won't make a big deal of it, and may even ask your opinion if they are unsure of something. And before some of you come back with "if you don't like it, run your own games", I do DM some. But really, I have more of a head for numbers than coming up with creative stuff from scratch. It takes me a long time to come up with interesting plots and adventures on my own, especially since I have a pretty busy life outside of gaming. So unless I just take a plotline I found on the net and modify it, or buy one in a store, I can't really run a decent weekly game. I guess luckily for me, the group I'm DMing for right now is a bunch of old friends that live in the town I moved away from, and I only get to run my game a half dozen times a year or so. So I have plenty of time to come up with detailed games and work on developing the setting between each session.
Spankinstein 12-05-04, 09:52 AM	I would be honored to play in a game with you. Knowing the rules and sharing them to others is something all players and DMs should do. I'm the most knowledegable in my group and the others usually look to me for the tough questions. I'm happy to do it, and it helps me learn more of the game. Stick to your guns, if all else fails, join my group.
ShadowDragon8685 12-05-04, 10:08 AM	I use printed out (or E-copy) cheat-sheets of the most debated or obscure rules. Example: It's 10 feet to the ground. If I deliberately make that jump at level 3, do I have a reasonable chance of not being debilitated? Depending on your class, yes, yes you do. If you're a Rogue, Monk, or lightly-armored Fighter, go for it. Your tumble or Strength checks, coupled with the fact that it was voluntary, should see you through with little to no lethal damage. If you're a wizard, you might want to cast Feather Fall or something. Another example: Does it provoke an AOO to move into range of the guard's spear, or does it provoke to move THROUGH that square? It provokes to move through it, so yes, you can walk up into spear range without problems. These are good examples. Some DMs will automatically stick you when you're in spear range and call it an AOO. Some DMs will be happy to load you up with 4d6 lethal falling damage from jumping out of a second story window, when in fact the most you're going to take (barring exceptional cuirmstances like jumping onto a patch of pungee sticks or something,) is 1d6 SUBDUAL. d20srd.org is your FRIEND. As are rules cheat-sheets. Remember, knowing the rules results in a better game for everyone. You might not think it, but when you find out that yes, even your wizard with no ranks in Jump and a STR of 10 can jump out of a second story window and look like Neo when he does it, your game experiance will improve.
trapspringer 12-05-04, 01:31 PM	While I agree the DM should play by the rules, not all DMs work that way. If the DM ignores the rules and the players are happy, then the OP should back off. But, if the DM is confounded as to why the PCs bypass everything he throws at them, even the cr 22 bugbear fighter with the spiked chain, then the game is suffering, and even worse the poor DM is suffering. It's one of those things that comes down to "If everyone is having fun but you...."
Ryan_Singer 12-05-04, 11:34 PM	I used to be a minor rules lawyer, but once I started DMing I didn't really have the time or attention to rules lawyer in-game, so I made a rule. If you are going to use a skill, spell or feat, have your book open to the appropriate page when you use it so I can read it. After this ruling, all of the rules lawyers in my game started enjoying themselves alot more because they knew their way around the books and could help their fellow players without anyone getting annoyed.
Prachett 12-06-04, 04:15 PM	Not only am I a rules lawyer, but I'm also a lawyer. I believe quite fanatically that the rules are there for purpose. With that said, however, we have a good group with a fair grasp of the rules, don't mind looking things up while someone else takes their turn, and of course, DM's word is final. We rarely get into rule debates, because of the looking up while out of turn method. I also don't mind being corrected (I just want to know the answer man!) and routinely ask people to look things up or tell me the rule when I DM. It's about being fair within the rules. If I screw up and my BBEG dies in one round, so be it. I'll just make a cooler one later. Logic would dictate, however, that at some point in time we will have looked every single rule there is too look up (just in time for 4.0). Ultimately, you need a group that fits your style. If it's no fun, it's no fun. You can't make someone follow the rules if they don't want and if you keep trying, you'll just lose'm anyways.
Dragonspirit 12-06-04, 04:32 PM	There is a line. What matters most is that you offer these rules to help, rather than to dictate. Pointing out the rules should be done in a way to facilitate the game, not to undermine the DM for your own self satisfaction. The DM should take words under advisement of course, but you should not spend all your time "over his shoulder" either, especially if it's not absolutely critical. In other words, you have a limited amount of argumentative capital, spend it wisely. :)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-06-04, 08:39 PM	For poeple who pride themselves on "having a good grasp of the rules" rules lawyers seem to always forget the same two rules over and over again. But if "the rules are there for a reason" why then forget about these two? 1) The DM's ruling is final. & 2) Rule zero. No one expects you to read this book cover to cover. It's not a novel. Instead we arranged this book into topic that you can refer to when you need them ............... The power of creating entire worlds, deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game-the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately the fun. It is a great deal of power. You must use it wisely. This book shows you how. Dungeon Master's Guide PG4. And hey just a thought here; but do you sapose that the Dungeon Master's Guide is called a guide (as aposed to the dungeon masters hand book, or rules set) for a reason? i just don't understand how players who sapposedly have all the core books memorized can forget about those those two rules. But what is worse about them, is that they feel the need to be disruptive to the game as a hole with their rules lawyering. I mean really, is every technicality so important that the game be brough to a halt, just so that you can prove that you are right about something? Anyone who would feel the need to justify their obsession with the rules by constantly proving that they are right, has some seriouse issues. Seriousely guys, just let it go, so that game can go on. And if it something really bothers you ask about it after the session. that way you aren't taking away the fun of D&D from everyone else at the table.
PhaedrusXY 12-06-04, 08:56 PM	1) The DM's ruling is final. & 2) Rule zero.The problem is that alot of DMs seem to think that these are the only two rules they need to know to run a game. I got news for you: They're not. If you want to play a game of "the DM makes up a bunch of stuff, and you have to like it or else", then go ahead. I won't be joining you.
UltimateReality 12-06-04, 10:48 PM	i just don't understand how players who sapposedly have all the core books memorized can forget about those those two rules. But what is worse about them, is that they feel the need to be disruptive to the game as a hole with their rules lawyering. I mean really, is every technicality so important that the game be brough to a halt, just so that you can prove that you are right about something? Anyone who would feel the need to justify their obsession with the rules by constantly proving that they are right, has some seriouse issues. You're mixing up different kinds of people here...some of us actually do care about the realism in a "pretend" world. It allows us to suspend dibelief just a little bit easier and longer. So yes, "technicalities" matter. (Perfect example of this: my view on god-drops. I think if there's no viable entry point, either: a) people aren't thinking hard enough, or b) the player should sit out til there /is/ a viable point they can think of. They're the ones that got the character killed in the first place, after all.) A lot of us don't care whether we're right or wrong -- we just want the rules to be applied fairly and consistently. I like to think I fall into this camp. If you want to wing a ruling, fine. However, when you start using rules that go against the core material, we will point it out. In general, WotC has designed a half-assed coherent set of rules, and most of the alternate ones we come up with are unbalanced somehow. Why not use official, at least theoritcally balanced, rules. (In fact, that's usually a pretty good litmus test for if someone has misinterpreted or misunderstood a rule: "does this give some particular choice a gross advantage? Does this make one player open his eyes with glee and another with dismay? Sounds like it's not the official ruling...") The other people you mentioned, yeah, they have issues. Bringing up stuff to be disruptive and get attention, having to always be right -- those are problems. But I don't think it's necessary to slam on those of us who just want fair and consistent application to create a more believable world.
Bulabase 12-07-04, 02:11 AM	everyone was really annoyed with my pointing it out whenever they weren't following the PHB/DMG rules...I pointed this out--perhaps I shouldn't have...according to at least one player, it's annoying. Any advice? I suspect your problem has less to do with "rules lawyering" than interpersonal dynamics. As a rule, most people don't like being corrected. Even fewer people like being corrected when it really isn't any of your business correcting them. Unsolicited criticism is generally regarded to be inconsiderate behavior by most people. If you are not the DM, avoid correcting other players mistakes. That's the DM's job. Don't argue with the DM in game unless it is a life or death situation for your character. Talk to him or her after the game. This will make the game more fun for everyone. If you do pipe up during games, make sure you remind the DM to take AoOs against your character when he or she provokes one. This will earn you a good deal of "arguementative capital" with the DM. Dragonspirit, thanks for that phrase, I love it.
FFTGeist 12-07-04, 09:43 AM	Rules lawyers aren't nessicarily a bad thing. I DM in a somewhat impatient group, so whenever we come across a problem one of the party members usually states the rules. (I DM a group of 5 players). I take note of the rule they stated and check it after the session is over to avoid unnessecary downtime... usually. (I do so enjoy returning the favor if someone states a rule that is incorrect, and they "just happen to remember" that what they said earlier was false. It also just happened to win them the fight. oh yes... returning the favor :schemes: ) Keep it up, as long as the DM and the other players like what your doing, if not, then hey you can always find another group if it bugs you to badly.
TommyBlack 12-07-04, 03:03 PM	If it seems like everybody else is having fun and you're just being annoying, then you're the one who is doing something wrong. Find out if this is the case, and if they really don't like your playing style, then play their way or find a new group.
Asta Kask 12-07-04, 04:20 PM	It seems that people fall naturally into one of two groups - those who believe Callista does the right thing and those who believe she's an annoying rules lawyer who should leave the game... I fall squarely into camp one, since I like to play by the rules. I find that playing by the rules makes it easier for me to concentrate on the world and avoid making really silly mistakes. If the rules don't seem to reflect the way I want the game to be played, I change them, but I do so consistently. The reason for this is quite simple. The rules are like the physics of the game. I've always felt that without a realistic background to the game, the illusion of magic and fantasy is impossible to maintain. Changing the rules at whim dispels this illusion for me. As a player, I try to do my best to be the "rules gopher", i.e., I keep the PHB and the DMG at hand and look up rules so the DM can concentrate on leading the game. If he does something the rules say is wrong, I don't say "You can't do that", but rather "You know that's not what the rules say, do you." Less confrontative. As a DM, I assign a fair player to be the gopher. I then follow his advice on when I deviate from the rules (which happens), and if I feel that a rule change is needed I motivate it (briefly) and make a note on the rule change. However, I realise that other DMs and players work differently and I respect that. It's just that it ruins the game for me. So, Callista, my advice would be to take a long discussion with your group about whether this ruins the game for them and try to work with them. Remember, these are friends (or should be...)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-08-04, 12:14 PM	Well first we have to detremine if you are the annoying kind of rules lawyer.( If you are I will have to kick you) Don't worry there is a simple test for this, just go and play D&D with your group, except don't "correct" anyone or anything, especailly the DM. Just play your charactor and ignore any and all of the rules benderous. Now if you group seems to enjoy the session more, and has more fun and what not, then you unforchunately are the bad kind of rules lawyer. Have fun, and try to remember that it is just a game, and one or two slip ups in the rules are not the end of the world. And for all the true rules lawyers out there; The game does have rules, lots of them in fact. And you may know them better then anyone else at the table, but if playing with you seems more like perparing for a court case then some good odd D&D, then your are breaking the number one and single most important rule of dungeons and Dragons.--> Dungeons and Dragons is a game, that is ment to be fun for all at the table. Oh and do bear in mind that the DM has the power to change or modify anything they don't like. Including removing that annoying lawyer from the group. Even though all DM's really hate to remove anyone fropm our groups, we do it preserve the fun for everyone else. Becuase ensuring that everyone has fun is a DM's first and for-most reponciblity.
thugpoetry 12-08-04, 01:03 PM	I tend to be a rules lawyer in my games. I made no bones about it when I joined my current group, and the DM and I talked about it outside of the game. He's of the type that, if he's doing something mechanically inconsistant with the rules, and I can show him where the inconsistancy is, he'll follow the RAW. He's cool like that. So, if he did the 4d6 for jumping 10 feet down...unless he had a special condition going on that I would take that damage, he'd change it over to the correct 1d6 subdual damage. Plus, I've agreed to try to bite down on a lot of the arguing/commenting, usually saving it for after the battle (since that's where most of the inconsistancies come in.) Of course, this does often come up to bite me in my ass later on, especially when I tell him how to improve his tactics. Next encounter, I see those tactics being used against me...oh boy...*rolls eyes* I single handedly increased the CR of this fight by 2...grrrrreat....
LukiLoki 12-08-04, 01:23 PM	Well there's a difference between being a true "Rules Lawyer" and simply pointing out a basic rule that the DM is forgetting or overlooking. Example from a real game: (I DM currently) PC Ranger turns a corner in the cave and is surprised by a lurking Troll, who knows he's there and is waiting for him to come in range. DM: OK, he gets a full attack on you, because he's waiting for you. PC: Well, if it's a surprise round that's only a standard action. DM: Oh, that's right. But you're flat-footed. *resolves action, no argument* I got carried away looking for a good rending on the hapless ranger, and simply forgot what I was doing (making an attack in a surprise round). Player points out my error, because he knows I am not running a "free-form" game where Rule 0 is all I need to know. He has a reasonable expectation that I, when gently reminded that I'm getting ahead of myself, will follow the correct mechanic. A true rules lawyer, though, has his OWN Rule 0, which states: "When events turn against your character or the party as a whole, exploit any inconsistency or ambiguity in the rules, real or perceived, to provoke a noisy, distracting argument with the DM, the outcome of which will hopefully be that the DM will change his mind out of sheer frustration and a desire to salvage something from a disrupted game." But it must be said, if you're DMing, and you don't know/follow the rules, and you think Rule 0 IS all you need to know, you are just inviting this kind of behavior. Listen to your players, admit when you were wrong, and they won't turn bad on you.
Callista 12-08-04, 08:24 PM	...like you I appreciate things running smoothly and according to more or less predicatable patters. (lawful much?) *sigh* Yes. Very much. In fact, I'm the only one in my gaming group whose real-life personality can be defined as "lawful". Of the 15-20 people I game with (we're running 3 different games, so it's not too much a situation of having to DM a small army), about 14 are chaotic, five or six Neutral, and then there's me... *points to sig*... the girl who believes that if everything is in its proper place, and everyone cooperates towards a common end, then everyone is happy. (There's a newbie in the group who is quasi-Lawful. But once she breaks away from her domineering Mother-from-heck... But I digress.) People mention the "rules lawyer" who will only point something out if it hurts their own character, or perhaps hurts a party member. I don't do that... if it's a non-technicality, I'll point out something that might favor the enemy, or even something that could kill my own character. I once reminded the DM to make an attack of opportunity against my raging level 5 barbarian; at the time she had 6 HP left. Thankfully the attack missed. I'm still trying to figure out if knocking her unconscious would've ended her rage, killing her... as I understand it, there are several threads out there about that, with differing opinions. My DM will have the final word, though, so I don't really have to worry about that, like I would if I were DMing for a barbarian character. I guess I've got to put myself in my Chaotic fellow-players' shoes, and realize that not everyone is happy when you can put the game into neat, disciplined little boxes. That not everyone thinks you have to play D&D completely by the rules (or even vaguely by the rules). That, for that matter, not everyone even thinks the rules are important. Sure, I could find another group which plays by the rules... but these are my friends; and if I can somehow fit my Lawful-paladin-like self into their Chaotic-rogue-like group (and it *can* be done; I've seen it done in game, so why not in real life?)... then maybe I can learn things about my friends and, by extension, my fellow human beings, that I wouldn't have learned by staying in my own Lawful bubble. I will, however, still be enforcing the RAW when I DM; and if it's important enough, I'll speak up. But I'm in the minority, usually... maybe I'll take a back-seat for a while and see how they run things, rather than trying to force them into doing things the way the rules say they ought to be done.
tec-9-7 12-08-04, 08:44 PM	I think Calista, that you have reached an honorable compromise. I think it speaks well of you to go w/ the flow as a player, but run your own game as you see fit!
MattB 12-08-04, 09:27 PM	My take oin this sort of situation is that when roleplaying you are entitled to assume that the game is being run under the written rules unless the DM has explicitly made a house rule, in which case you adopt that house rule into your assumptions when playing. If something happens that is obvioiusly not according to the RAW and has never happened before, you are perfectly entitled to point out the discrepancy, as you have been working to one set of assumtions (the RAW) and the other player/DM is using a different set (or has just forgotten/misremembered the RAW). At which point the DM should do one of 3 things: 1. Say Oh yes, you are right, we got that wrong... we will use the RAW here 2. OK, the RAW say such-and-such, but I'm making it a house rule to do it this other way 3. Ok, we'll play it by [RAW/another way] for this session and I'll decide by next session which way we will play it in future.
e-z0r 12-09-04, 03:49 PM	I just want that when I've considered the rules in planning my characters' actions, I'd like the DM to consider them, too. As with a deadly enough opponent, battlefield tactics will be really important (sometimes down to every move), and so it just doesn't give the same sense of victory when you don't win or lose depending on whether your plan played out, but rather depending on how the dm wanted it. (It's not as fun when you don't get the advantage due to your reasoning but due to the dm fudging the roll that would've killed you. I want a DM that is judicious and strict, among other things.) Also it really pains me when a DM nerfs enemies (not taking AoOs, not using At Will: Finger of Death, and so on). Okay, it's nice not having to roll up a character every two sessions, but it should rather be that the DM select opponents that aren't too strong, instead of picking too deadly opponents and then just not using them to their full potential. If you were fighting for your life and death, would YOU not use Finger of death at will? I sure as hell would.