Somtimes I seriously wonder if I am, or if i'm just the guy who reminds people of things.
I mean like earlier, we had a DM use a lighting bolt attack that struck fortitude. (custom campain) I questioned it, since lighting based attacks normally attack reflex. I'm also the guy who keeps track of most of the marks and other penalties that are applied.
Sometimes, I even remind the DM that he could be taking an AoO against my character. (Often because the thing that would be attacking me is marked.)
The biggest area i guess that I'm a rules lawyer on is Grabbing. I've studied them in and out, since i was playing a Garrote rogue. So I know things like the hundred or so diffrent ways you can break a grapple or the various rules to initiate it.
from what you're saying, it just sounds like you're trying to be helpful (of course, helping the DM to do more damage to the party is a beat-down offense for me).
"rules-lawyer" is a bit derogatory, implying that you hold hard-and-fast to the exact letter of the rule to the exclusion of all other context. does this sound like you?
I don't think I am. I know I am.
Generally when people say "rules lawyer" they're referring to someone who twists the meaning of the RAW in their favor in a way that goes against RAI.
Generally when people say "rules lawyer" they're referring to someone who twists the meaning of the RAW in their favor in a way that goes against RAI.
The counterpart is people who use their rules knowledge to keep things fair, known occassionally as "Lawful Good Rules Lawyers".
I'm a 'reformed' rules lawyer. I admit I used to...but I amended my ways long ago.
PtM
Anyone that brings up the rules in an effort to 1) help the DM "get things right," 2) Keep the game fair despite that being a hindrance to the characters at this time, or 3) be sure that the DM meant what he just said (when it contradicts a rule completely) is alright in my book.
...but they sure aren't a rules lawyer. I use the terms "Rule Jockey," or "Book Monkey," or some combination or similar phrase for this type of person.
Rules lawyers, like has been stated, are the ones trying to get away with something and using rules knowledge to do so.
I think how the rules are mentioned can be a big factor. Addressing things out of the game or through a note passed to the DM might be a lot less disruptive then holding up combat. Or even if its just mentioned once politely rather then constantly badgering about it.
Well most of the time, I'm doing quite the opposite of trying to get away withsomething. I'm actually usually hindering myself, Only recently have i been actually trying to use acrobatics to do stunts (Which usually causes me to roll a very low number.. 1.)
Back in 3.5 days, I'd make use of the ability where you can draw your weapon while walking to an enemy.
Typically after a game, I gather information, then repost on our forums things i learned or things we were doing wrong. Often it was something the DM had been doing wrong, such as stopping death rolls as soon as someone rolled above 10.
Then I've also intentionally provoked AoO to allow our swordmage to get his special attack in. course i was using a con based revenant.
Anyone that brings up the rules in an effort to 1) help the DM "get things right," 2) Keep the game fair despite that being a hindrance to the characters at this time, or 3) be sure that the DM meant what he just said (when it contradicts a rule completely) is alright in my book.
...but they sure aren't a rules lawyer. I use the terms "Rule Jockey," or "Book Monkey," or some combination or similar phrase for this type of person.
Just to clarify my above post this is the type of rules lawyer I am.
I've always considered a rules lawyer as doing exactly what you are doing AND BEING RESENTED FOR IT. As long as everyone is ok with it, its not a problem.
I've always considered a rules lawyer as doing exactly what you are doing AND BEING RESENTED FOR IT. As long as everyone is ok with it, its not a problem.
Well thats the thing, I wonder if i'm being resented for it. I try to play in both ball parks to make sure that the players arn't doing something wrong, (Mostly this one guy who is like really old and gets confused on the whole differences between 2nd and 4th edition. The moment you say "Save ends" this guy is jumping for his dice and almost rolling away, even though its not yet his turn.) I expect the same thing in turn. If i screw up, I want them to correct me.
Like the first few games we played, I was still in the 3.5 mindset and was like "Wait a min, what the hell? How can he attack me from there?" when enemies where attacking me diagonally. I've since learned and adjusted most of my thinking in turn.
You people say "rules lawyer" like it's a bad thing. Knowing the rules is good, knowing them better than everyone else at the table is fine.
Being a jerk about it isn't.
And in the words of Bill Watterson, "I don't wonder; I know."
Sigh...same boat...I have to constantly remind my players just to make attack rolls...
As far as RPGs go?Nope.
I'm (ussually) a DM. That means I auto-trump any rule when I'm running. 
As a player? I'm content to play things however the DM atm wants.
When I'm playing actual miniture wargames it's a completely different story.
To my mind, a rules lawyer is somebody who knows every rule and yet still misses the point of them. He will use the rules to his advantage. If he says, You can't do that because of such and such rule in This Sourcebook You've Never Heard Of, then yes.
No, you're not a rules lawyer.
When I'm playing actual miniture wargames it's a completely different story.
I think that's the same boat I'm in. I'm not the 'Ard Boyz sort, really, but system mastery is an expected trait in my tabletop community. You're still a newbie until you can quote point costs and obscure rules without reference and theoryhammer your way through entire games over coffee and pie (oh my).
Since I've been neck-deep in that longer than D&D, that's the standpoint that I tend to approach PnP from.
That said, I try to use my powers for Good.
That said, I try to use my powers for Good.
I consider system mastery to be a beautiful thing - information is power, and the better I know the rules, the better I can play the game. I'm sure as hell not about to get cheated out of an attack of opportunity or an extra die of damage through my own stupidity. And on the opposite side of the coin, I'm not about to try to weasel out of taking a hit just because the DM got sidetracked and overlooked something. At the very least, I can be sure that if I show up to a game then at least one person there will have half a clue how to do things, lol.
In the gaming group I unfortunately just got real-lifed out of (dammit...), I was the one who kept the turns going quickly by knowing everyone's powers and being able to rattle off attacks and defences, making sure that players coming from three other editions were all on the same page, and growing the other players' ability to play their characters effectively by pointing out particular rules in situations where knowing them would be beneficial.
I mean like earlier, we had a DM use a lighting bolt attack that struck fortitude. (custom campain) I questioned it, since lighting based attacks normally attack reflex. I'm also the guy who keeps track of most of the marks and other penalties that are applied.
Sometimes, I even remind the DM that he could be taking an AoO against my character. (Often because the thing that would be attacking me is marked.)
These just sound like useful pointers to me.
I've always thought that rules lawyers means that you quote the rules as if they trump the specific use the player or DM intended. For example, lightening attacks usually target reflex, and this is a handy thing to point out. But this is a brand new power with a brand new application, so there is no reason it can't target fortitude. I would expect the DM to take this variation from the norm into account and come up with a flavorful way of describing the power that makes it clear why it targets fortitude. A rules lawyer would insist that a lightening power MUST target reflex, no exceptions, and the DM is just a cheating unfair bastard.
As for the marks, penalties, and AOs, somebody has to keep track of those things, otherwise they have no purpose or meaning. That's just being helpful.
Yeah, Okay.. So basically as long as I don't keep pushing things like demanding to know why lighting attacks fortitue and refusing to budge (thus stopping the game) until it targets reflex, I'm still in the clear of being a rules lawyer.
Did find out however, my fighter character was annoying the DM at that time, since I built her with 1 goal in mind. Inflict as many penalties as possible.
I'll pretty frequently mention easily-forgettable things while doing my turns. "I move here ... this guy can take an OA if he wants, but if he does, the Paladin's Divine Challenge will fry him." That sort of thing. Especially since I sometimes try to provoke OAs so our Paladin's DC goes off.
I'll pretty frequently mention easily-forgettable things while doing my turns. "I move here ... this guy can take an OA if he wants, but if he does, the Paladin's Divine Challenge will fry him." That sort of thing. Especially since I sometimes try to provoke OAs so our Paladin's DC goes off.
That's not rules lawyering, that's being a damn fine player to have at the table.
...though I have met DMs that get waaaay mad at you for reminding them of anything - especially if they've only been DMing about 3 or so sessions, and are usually one of the players under your DMship... but that's why I don't join a game until someone who has played that game with me behind the screen tells me that the person behind the screen seems like they know what they are doing.
Did find out however, my fighter character was annoying the DM at that time, since I built her with 1 goal in mind. Inflict as many penalties as possible.
hey, there's nothing wrong with finding one thing and doing it very well (as a matter of fact, I recommend it). It's up to the DM to adjust as needed.
I consider a rules lawyer someone who just knows the rules really well, the guy who the DM goes to when he's not sure on some obscure game mechanism. Some rules lawyers can be annoying - constantly interrupting on minor points, or whatever. Others are also power gamers. Others are roleplayers. Depends on the particular person. But in spite of however they play - at least they know the rules.
Whenever I DM a game or I'm playing in a game, I do what I can to keep the game flowing while keeping the rulings accurate and effective. I will check a book for the rules and take no longer than 1 minute to identify a resolution to the query (even if no one inquired), and I will point out what the book says. In the event I'm a player, I'll remind everyone I don't expect the book to command the DM, and that the DM ultimately gets the final word in how the game is handled. This is in all events that I know a rule being mistaken, be it for my benefit or against it, or against my allies or for them.
I don't think that is what "rules lawyer" is, but if it is, I am that. And that isn't a bad thing. Not inherently. Only if someone makes it a bad thing.
Generally when people say "rules lawyer" they're referring to someone who twists the meaning of the RAW in their favor in a way that goes against RAI.
I often find the people refering to RAI are twisting intents in their own favour as well. The magically invent the 'intent' of the rule, then insist its not their invention. It's twister Vs twister. Whoever calls someone a rules laywers is pretty much a rules lawyer themselves.
It would be nice to follow the intent of the author. But too often the authors 'intent' is used like a religious leader using his interpretation of a bible to boss people around.
It would be nice to follow the intent of the author. But too often the authors 'intent' is used like a religious leader using his interpretation of a bible to boss people around.
Well of course it is! The authors are too busy posting in ENworld to tell those of us on the Official forums just what the hell they mean.
there is about a hundred RAI for the garrote. but no real posts on the Authors intent ANYWHERE here. Never mind Desert Moon Dancer.
I often find the people refering to RAI are twisting intents in their own favour as well. The magically invent the 'intent' of the rule, then insist its not their invention. It's twister Vs twister. Whoever calls someone a rules laywers is pretty much a rules lawyer themselves.It would be nice to follow the intent of the author. But too often the authors 'intent' is used like a religious leader using his interpretation of a bible to boss people around.
Sometimes you have no choice but to infer RAI, because RAW is broken or unclear.
And sometimes RAI is broken or unclear, so you have to go with RATSB.
Somtimes I seriously wonder if I am, or if i'm just the guy who reminds people of things.
I mean like earlier, we had a DM use a lighting bolt attack that struck fortitude. (custom campain) I questioned it, since lighting based attacks normally attack reflex. I'm also the guy who keeps track of most of the marks and other penalties that are applied.
Sometimes, I even remind the DM that he could be taking an AoO against my character. (Often because the thing that would be attacking me is marked.)
The biggest area i guess that I'm a rules lawyer on is Grabbing. I've studied them in and out, since i was playing a Garrote rogue. So I know things like the hundred or so diffrent ways you can break a grapple or the various rules to initiate it.
You're a semi rules lawyer and a very annoying player for a DM. Write down mistakes and any other comments you have during a game and talk to the players and DM after the game. It will keep you from being booted out. Because, trust me. Constantly correcting players rules knowledge and playstyle, and especially the DM's rules knowledge and playstyle gets old very fast.
I often find the people refering to RAI are twisting intents in their own favour as well. The magically invent the 'intent' of the rule, then insist its not their invention. It's twister Vs twister. Whoever calls someone a rules laywers is pretty much a rules lawyer themselves.It would be nice to follow the intent of the author. But too often the authors 'intent' is used like a religious leader using his interpretation of a bible to boss people around.
Sometimes you have no choice but to infer RAI, because RAW is broken or unclear.
And sometimes RAI is broken or unclear, so you have to go with RATSB.
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
Yeah, sorry, that was deliberate on my part because I have an utterly stupid sense of humor. I feel pretty much the same way you do but thought it would be funny to throw in one more acronym amongst the more recognizable ones. It's because I'm a goofy idiot, not because you are missing something that you ought to know already.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
RATSB (unique to this post) = Rules as They Should Be
Do you actually spell out your words when you speak? That seems like it would take an awful long time.
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
Yeah, sorry, that was deliberate on my part because I have an utterly stupid sense of humor. I feel pretty much the same way you do but thought it would be funny to throw in one more acronym amongst the more recognizable ones. It's because I'm a goofy idiot, not because you are missing something that you ought to know already.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
RATSB (unique to this post) = Rules as They Should Be
Do you actually spell out your words when you speak? That seems like it would take an awful long time.
wait a minute -- he complains about abbreviations, and drops a "IIRC" in the middle of it.
does anyone else see anything wrong with that?
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
Yeah, sorry, that was deliberate on my part because I have an utterly stupid sense of humor. I feel pretty much the same way you do but thought it would be funny to throw in one more acronym amongst the more recognizable ones. It's because I'm a goofy idiot, not because you are missing something that you ought to know already.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
RATSB (unique to this post) = Rules as They Should Be
Do you actually spell out your words when you speak? That seems like it would take an awful long time.
wait a minute -- he complains about abbreviations, and drops a "IIRC" in the middle of it.does anyone else see anything wrong with that?
I just took it as irony ;)
Somtimes I seriously wonder if I am, or if i'm just the guy who reminds people of things.
I mean like earlier, we had a DM use a lighting bolt attack that struck fortitude. (custom campain) I questioned it, since lighting based attacks normally attack reflex. I'm also the guy who keeps track of most of the marks and other penalties that are applied.
Sometimes, I even remind the DM that he could be taking an AoO against my character. (Often because the thing that would be attacking me is marked.)
The biggest area i guess that I'm a rules lawyer on is Grabbing. I've studied them in and out, since i was playing a Garrote rogue. So I know things like the hundred or so diffrent ways you can break a grapple or the various rules to initiate it.
You're a semi rules lawyer and a very annoying player for a DM. Write down mistakes and any other comments you have during a game and talk to the players and DM after the game. It will keep you from being booted out. Because, trust me. Constantly correcting players rules knowledge and playstyle, and especially the DM's rules knowledge and playstyle gets old very fast.
You make the statement above as if its hard fact, when actually its just a matter of opinion. Nothing in the OP's post sounds like things I would find anoying (only going by the text of the post of course). Some DMs prefer if you only question mistakens / rulings after the game. Personally when I DM I don't mind if someone questions a ruling during the game, sometimes I did make a mistake which can then quickly be corrected, if more time is required than I can always make a temporary ruling and agree to look it up after the game (or during a break or whatever). The problem only comes when someone wants to spend more than 30 sec arguing about a ruling instead of carrying on and looking it up / discussing it afterwards.
To give an example:
Good (IMO of course, can't speak for other people):
DM: He shoots a lightning bolt at you, does fortitude 28 hit?
Player: Fort? Are you sure its not against reflex, all other lightning powers I know of are.
DM: Yes I'm sure (or if the DM did make a mistake: sorry, you're right, I misread, so does ref 28 hit?)
Player: OK, fort 28 hits. How much damage? *play continues*
Bad (IMO once again):
DM: He shoots a lightning bolt at you, does fortitude 28 hit?
Player: Fort? Are you sure its not against reflex, all other lightning powers I know of are.
DM: Yes I'm sure
Player: But it can't be against fort, because all other lightning powers are against ref and anyway it makes no sense for lightning powers to attack fort. *Spends several minutes going through books to point out that lightning powers always attack ref untill the DM either gives in or tells the player to accept that the attack was against fort or leave*
In the end of course what the people here on the boards think is completely irrelevent. What matters is whether your DM and party members find your behaviour annoying. Luckily there's a pretty easy way to find out, ask them! Before the next game starts just say: 'Hey guys, I've noticed that sometimes I do [possibly annoying behaviour] and I was worried that you might find that annoying, do you?' Either the other players say yes, in which case you should try to modify your behaviour, or they say no, in which case you can carry on having fun.
Well i was under the good then. I questioned it, but didn't press it at all. Just was trying to get the mental picture of why a bolt of lighting would be fort instead of reflex.
Now i could see something like grabbing to electrical wires and completing a circuit as a fort.
I don't think I am. I know I am.
+1.
I'm a borderline rules lawyer. Basically my stance is "This is what the rules say, now do whatever the expletive you want."
Or rather I don't particularly care if the DMs invoke Rule 0, just that they know when they're invoking it.
I'm a borderline rules lawyer. Basically my stance is "This is what the rules say, now do whatever the expletive you want."
Or rather I don't particularly care if the DMs invoke Rule 0, just that they know when they're invoking it.
Not a bad policy, really.
Or rather I don't particularly care if the DMs invoke Rule 0, just that they know when they're invoking it.
i'm kinda like this but I also want an explanation why rule 0 is being invoked if there is a clear rule governing the situation already written. the reason i am like this is because when i sit at a table I am there to play d&d(d&d for me is how WotC designed it. not interested in house rules in the least) and i want to play d&d because i like the rules WotC writes for it.
I guess I lean the more to rules lawyer than most of the other people I play with.
I prefer starting an rpg with the rules as written, but have no problem adapting to house rules, even if it doesn't sit well with me.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg. But only house rules made up from an informed point of view.
House rules for a purpose, or if you as a dm don't agree with the rules as written, no problem. House rules because the dm doesn't want to look up how simple attack rolls work for example, no thank you.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg.
Not too long ago I would have doubted that such a DM existed, but I recently played a World of Darkness game with a storyteller who apparently hadn't even read the book. It was like he thought the setting was cool and figured the actual system was superfluous and he would just make up the rules on the fly.
I'm all for streamlining WoD games, especially once you get really powerful and a lot of the mechanics become clunky in practice, and fistfuls of dice are bouncing around the table and rolling under chairs, but you need to have at least a sense of how the system is supposed to work before you start rewriting it willynilly.
I can only imagine that a more mechanics-based strategy game like DnD would be even more maddening to play if the DM felt he could just make it up as he went along.
I guess I lean the more to rules lawyer than most of the other people I play with.
I prefer starting an rpg with the rules as written, but have no problem adapting to house rules, even if it doesn't sit well with me.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg. But only house rules made up from an informed point of view.
House rules for a purpose, or if you as a dm don't agree with the rules as written, no problem. House rules because the dm doesn't want to look up how simple attack rolls work for example, no thank you.
Oh i had a DM like that once. We only played under him one time.
Was a 3.5 game where the two of us where level 1. But we were not allowed to use some of our primal feats we picked up, like cleave. Cause we were only level 1. The worst was when i had to roll to get for burning hands, mainly because he wouldn't tell me what i needed to roll.
Amusingly, the only time I've actually raised my voice in a game over rules was when my dad was playing, and I was the DM. He is very used to arguing/debating with me, and the concept of me being the final authority just didn't really click. *grins*
All the other players were murmuring, "...but you're the DM, you're the DM, he's the DM...", and he got the hint eventually.
*chuckles* The ruling even worked in his favour, too. Funny old world, isn't it.
I guess I lean the more to rules lawyer than most of the other people I play with.
I prefer starting an rpg with the rules as written, but have no problem adapting to house rules, even if it doesn't sit well with me.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg. But only house rules made up from an informed point of view.
House rules for a purpose, or if you as a dm don't agree with the rules as written, no problem. House rules because the dm doesn't want to look up how simple attack rolls work for example, no thank you.Oh i had a DM like that once. We only played under him one time.
Was a 3.5 game where the two of us where level 1. But we were not allowed to use some of our primal feats we picked up, like cleave. Cause we were only level 1. The worst was when i had to roll to get for burning hands, mainly because he wouldn't tell me what i needed to roll.
Sounds like editionitis. In 2e and prior, you had to roll a percent chance to learn a spell, and if you blew it, you could *never* learn that spell no matter what.
Stupid rule.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg. But only house rules made up from an informed point of view.
I don't mind making up rules on the fly, *inherently*.
What drives me crazy is the GM making up house rules on the fly that *contradict the written rules you just explained were part of your plan*.
A specific example: We have a prone guy adjacent to a nasty melee monster and he needs to get out of there. It's a tight corridor and there's no free spaces that aren't adjacent to the monster at the moment.
The solution: The Fighter, who is blocking one of the squares that characters wants to move to, moves to stand on top of the prone character. The prone guy will stand up, "shifting" away from the monster as part of the stand because he's in an occupied space. He can then act normally while not only non-adjacent, but with the Fighter between him and the monster. Great, right?
This plan is come up with, explained to the Fighter and the prone guy and the GM, everyone agrees to it, and half the round passes as the rest of the party does their own part in prepping to make sure the space is clear and no monsters get into a place to block this. It's finely-oiled teamwork.
The Fighter goes to move, and suddenly the GM say "You can't move into an occupied square!"
Not "you can't end your move on a prone ally" (which is both legal AND central to The Plan) but "You can't enter an occupied square." Followed very closely by "I'm the GM and I'm not discussing this now, we can argue rules later".
Poof. For the rest of that session, *moving through allies* was suddenly illegal. Until the GM wanted to have the monsters do it, at which point it suddenly became legal again.
What really gets on my nerves though is house rules made up on the fly because the dm in question is too lazy to even pick up the book before starting the rpg. But only house rules made up from an informed point of view.
I don't mind making up rules on the fly, *inherently*.
What drives me crazy is the GM making up house rules on the fly that *contradict the written rules you just explained were part of your plan*.
A specific example: We have a prone guy adjacent to a nasty melee monster and he needs to get out of there. It's a tight corridor and there's no free spaces that aren't adjacent to the monster at the moment.
The solution: The Fighter, who is blocking one of the squares that characters wants to move to, moves to stand on top of the prone character. The prone guy will stand up, "shifting" away from the monster as part of the stand because he's in an occupied space. He can then act normally while not only non-adjacent, but with the Fighter between him and the monster. Great, right?
This plan is come up with, explained to the Fighter and the prone guy and the GM, everyone agrees to it, and half the round passes as the rest of the party does their own part in prepping to make sure the space is clear and no monsters get into a place to block this. It's finely-oiled teamwork.
The Fighter goes to move, and suddenly the GM say "You can't move into an occupied square!"
Not "you can't end your move on a prone ally" (which is both legal AND central to The Plan) but "You can't enter an occupied square." Followed very closely by "I'm the GM and I'm not discussing this now, we can argue rules later".
Poof. For the rest of that session, *moving through allies* was suddenly illegal. Until the GM wanted to have the monsters do it, at which point it suddenly became legal again.
This is when I stop the game, look to all the other players for a nod of approval, and then say "Alright "DM," your choices are simple; we run the game with the rules from the books despite you not knowing them or liking them, or you pass that screen over to me and start making a character."
It's not that I don't mind a DM that makes a house rule, it's that a refuse to allow a DM to think that his idea as to what the rules should be is somehow more important than the players' collective ideas. House rules are to be made before a session, and agreed upon by all parties involved (or at least a majority vote)... at least that's how I have run everything for 13 years.
It's probably not a surpise that I become "THE DM," for a group the very first time I run a game for them either.
My DM made me one. Aside from him I'm the only other player who knows the rules. He wants my help in settling rule ambiguities. I am fair about it. I point out stuff that hurts the party as well as help the party. On the occasions there's a circumstance I could not possibly know about because it's DM stuff, the DM lets me know that's the case, and the issue is dropped. Other times stuff happens we don't know why, but I figure out a way it could have been done. The DM doesn't say I'm right or wrong, but it's fun to figure it out. Sometimes he gives a wry smile when I figure it out.
One thing that isn't sitting well with me right now is Natural 1s and Natural 20s.
Our DM doesn't have natural 20's be an autosuccess. (As it should be.) So no autosucceading when trying to leap tall buildings in a single bound, lifting up said tall building or talking a dragon into being your pet.
The problem is that the DM has Natural 1's be autofailures. So if i'm walking down the road, 1 out of every 20 times i do it, I will fall flat on my face. So these god like individuals at level 30 who can blow up planets could suddenly roll a natural 1 trying to pick up a rock (dc 5) and strain thier arm. (cause its in combat.)
An example is my gnoll i have. He had gnoll tracking, but both times i tried and was allowed to use it, I roll a 1. Mind you, I've tried about a hundred other times to use it, on anything. But there was always a strange overpowering sent that blocked my trained, feated up, gnoll from being able to smell anything.
So much so, I eventually got a bit tired of it, and when my gnoll was lit on fire (Because a forced movement on the DMs part to get me into a position where i still couldn't attack.) The DM said something about me smelling a large amount of burned gnoll fur. So I gave him a retort, that all i can smell is pine. (Since i was barred from using gnoll tracking in the room because of the pine in it.)
One thing that isn't sitting well with me right now is Natural 1s and Natural 20s.
Our DM doesn't have natural 20's be an autosuccess. (As it should be.) So no autosucceading when trying to leap tall buildings in a single bound, lifting up said tall building or talking a dragon into being your pet.
The problem is that the DM has Natural 1's be autofailures. So if i'm walking down the road, 1 out of every 20 times i do it, I will fall flat on my face. So these god like individuals at level 30 who can blow up planets could suddenly roll a natural 1 trying to pick up a rock (dc 5) and strain thier arm. (cause its in combat.)
An example is my gnoll i have. He had gnoll tracking, but both times i tried and was allowed to use it, I roll a 1. Mind you, I've tried about a hundred other times to use it, on anything. But there was always a strange overpowering sent that blocked my trained, feated up, gnoll from being able to smell anything.
So much so, I eventually got a bit tired of it, and when my gnoll was lit on fire (Because a forced movement on the DMs part to get me into a position where i still couldn't attack.) The DM said something about me smelling a large amount of burned gnoll fur. So I gave him a retort, that all i can smell is pine. (Since i was barred from using gnoll tracking in the room because of the pine in it.)
Your DM hates his players. He doesn't want you to succeed on anything without his express permission. String him up like the Il Duce he is, metaphorically speaking.
there is no hope for me-i am a rule lawyer.....and i sooooo love it!
Your DM hates his players. He doesn't want you to succeed on anything without his express permission. String him up like the Il Duce he is, metaphorically speaking.
Well i'm gonna get back at him, passive-agressively. Either some pinesol or those pine tree air fresheners strapped under his spot before he gets into the game store this week.
Your DM hates his players. He doesn't want you to succeed on anything without his express permission. String him up like the Il Duce he is, metaphorically speaking.
Well i'm gonna get back at him, passive-agressively. Either some pinesol or those pine tree air fresheners strapped under his spot before he gets into the game store this week.
Ouch. That's harsh.
Of course, I may be biased, I'm allergic to pine.
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
Yeah, sorry, that was deliberate on my part because I have an utterly stupid sense of humor. I feel pretty much the same way you do but thought it would be funny to throw in one more acronym amongst the more recognizable ones. It's because I'm a goofy idiot, not because you are missing something that you ought to know already.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
RATSB (unique to this post) = Rules as They Should Be
Do you actually spell out your words when you speak? That seems like it would take an awful long time.
Thanks for the explanation, I'll write those down, and yes, I try my best to spell everything out for any new members who begin posting in these forums. It makes it easier to understand.
I wish people would speak english and not greek, Or atleast explain what all those things mean to those of us who don't speak that language. Some of us actually spell out our words, and speak them the same way.
RAW= Rules as written (IIRC) but the other two are greek to me.
Yeah, sorry, that was deliberate on my part because I have an utterly stupid sense of humor. I feel pretty much the same way you do but thought it would be funny to throw in one more acronym amongst the more recognizable ones. It's because I'm a goofy idiot, not because you are missing something that you ought to know already.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
RATSB (unique to this post) = Rules as They Should Be
Do you actually spell out your words when you speak? That seems like it would take an awful long time.
wait a minute -- he complains about abbreviations, and drops a "IIRC" in the middle of it.does anyone else see anything wrong with that?
I just took it as irony ;)
IIRC is far more widely known than the others.
there is no hope for me-i am a rule lawyer.....and i sooooo love it!
You'd get banned for life from my groups then, and many, many other groups too. Rules lawyers ruin games more often than not.
there is no hope for me-i am a rule lawyer.....and i sooooo love it!
You'd get banned for life from my groups then, and many, many other groups too. Rules lawyers ruin games more often than not.
probably not: i know when to keep my mouth shut on some things...mots of the time i am telling him what he would roll for somethings.....dont want to ruin my fun afterall. for explain say if a dm is sitting there and thinking of what to roll for NPC intercations i would say "if he is lying bluff, if he is tryign to cut a deal diplomacy or if he is trying to scare us intimidate."
but there are sometimes when i will piss off the other player(s) by stating the repercunsion of their actions like "oh great! now that you have slaughtered of those people good and lawfull churches are going to want you head as well as bounty hunters, I-rate halfings, allies to the halfings..." in which case i heard "STFU! you are giving DM ideas!!!"
probably not: i know when to keep my mouth shut on some things...mots of the time i am telling him what he would roll for somethings.....dont want to ruin my fun afterall. for explain say if a dm is sitting there and thinking of what to roll for NPC intercations i would say "if he is lying bluff, if he is tryign to cut a deal diplomacy or if he is trying to scare us intimidate."
but there are sometimes when i will piss off the other player(s) by stating the repercunsion of their actions like "oh great! now that you have slaughtered of those people good and lawfull churches are going to want you head as well as bounty hunters, I-rate halfings, allies to the halfings..." in which case i heard "STFU! you are giving DM ideas!!!"
That kinda sounds like a fluff lawyer to me.. :P
OR maybe a roleplayer.
probably not: i know when to keep my mouth shut on some things...mots of the time i am telling him what he would roll for somethings.....dont want to ruin my fun afterall. for explain say if a dm is sitting there and thinking of what to roll for NPC intercations i would say "if he is lying bluff, if he is tryign to cut a deal diplomacy or if he is trying to scare us intimidate."
but there are sometimes when i will piss off the other player(s) by stating the repercunsion of their actions like "oh great! now that you have slaughtered of those people good and lawfull churches are going to want you head as well as bounty hunters, I-rate halfings, allies to the halfings..." in which case i heard "STFU! you are giving DM ideas!!!"
That kinda sounds like a fluff lawyer to me.. :P
OR maybe a roleplayer.
what is a fluff lawyer?!?!?...well i do rp alot.....but i right now i am stuck on somethings right in the rp department....why couldnt wizards wrote a book for RPing 3.5???
Can't hotlink from that site. Try rehosting it instead.
what is a fluff lawyer?!?!?...well i do rp alot.....but i right now i am stuck on somethings right in the rp department....why couldnt wizards wrote a book for RPing 3.5???
The DMG?