I'm very new to D&D. I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy. D&D 4th edition is something I've become hyperfocused on. I read the books for the rules, I go to rules forums and FAQs, etc.
This all serves me well when I DM games.
However, when I play games, I feel a need to point out when a DM doesn't use a rule correctly. Like if they treat invisible enemies as hidden automatically, or they think charging is a move action and you can do it from one square away. Lots of little things.
The problem is, I find myself unable to not sound like a douchebag. You know that guy that corrects what you're doing without being asked to? I sound like that guy. I have no desire to be hated. But I also can't stand watching DMs use rules wrong. I can't even come to them after the game and talk to them about it without coming off like a douche.
These DMs I'm talking about aren't necessarily my friends (yet), some are friends of friends.
Any advice?
On the other hand, try to bite your tounge for small things. The stuff you wrote about is actually nothing all that minor but you should just shut up and take it like a man - I'm guessing from your name here - if it indeed does not give major (dis-)advantages to either party (and you have to use your own judgement on that, 'cuz no examples come to mind right now and I'm feeling lazy).
Just my 2 copper.
I'm very new to D&D. I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy. D&D 4th edition is something I've become hyperfocused on. I read the books for the rules, I go to rules forums and FAQs, etc.
This all serves me well when I DM games.
However, when I play games, I feel a need to point out when a DM doesn't use a rule correctly. Like if they treat invisible enemies as hidden automatically, or they think charging is a move action and you can do it from one square away. Lots of little things.
The problem is, I find myself unable to not sound like a douchebag. You know that guy that corrects what you're doing without being asked to? I sound like that guy. I have no desire to be hated. But I also can't stand watching DMs use rules wrong. I can't even come to them after the game and talk to them about it without coming off like a douche.
These DMs I'm talking about aren't necessarily my friends (yet), some are friends of friends.
Any advice?
You have three options.
1. Talk to the DM which it sounds like you've done and it isn't working out.
2. Leave the game.
3. Accept it. Treat these mistakes as house rules and accept that things work differently in his game.
I *try* to always start or end the response with, "...ultimately, it's your call..."
sure, sometimes i forget and i'd like things to play out just as i think they ought to. such as rolling out a few crits on a seeker power that gave area of effect. the DM decided that since the distance was kinda far and i was in a low ceiling tunnel (8 ft ceiling) and that i had six of my allies between me and my target, that, it was highly likley that i just showered them with my storm of spirit shards.
ultimately it was his call; i dropped two of my allies in that single attack and bloodied our warlord. I was mad because i lost a daily that i had rolled out crits for by hitting my own party members and had dropped two of them. but, hey, it was his turn to adjudicate the rules.
i can't say that there is anything wrong with being really knowledgeable about the rules and such as that. just remember that the DM adjudicates the rules and that gives the DM the right to set aside some rules and avoid some of the nitpicking of carefully following each and every rule.
I'd say, pick your battles. If a player is abusing the rules, or the DM is causing major problems, say something, or talk to the DM after the game.
If it's minor stuff, roll with the punchs, and never DM. (It will drive you mad)
If it's minor stuff, roll with the punchs, and never DM. (It will drive you mad)
You may want to read the OP again, carefully. DMing isn't his problem; being a player is when he feels awkward.
As to the OP, I suggest 1) picking your battles, as others have said and 2) practice being polite with your rules lawyering. Start your corrections with "I'm pretty sure that charging is a standard action" or "Are we using a house rule about charging? Because..." Also practice a moderate tone of voice when correcting rules errors: try to be calm. Not loud or high pitched; try to keep a conversational tone.
I have a guy like you in my group; he has a condition which makes him a human encyclopedia of D&D rules which can come in handy. I can tell that it's sometimes hard for him to restrain himself, but he's getting better with effort.
(As an aside, I house rule that you can charge over one square -- though you don't get the usual bonuses if you do. This is to fix the 'knock prone, shift back one square' loophole.)
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
That was similar to my first response too, but the poster may mean that he/she gets focused on things they like, even when supposed to be doing something else, and can't control impulses to blurt things out.
Or not, I don't know.
My second response was that there are several fairly easy treatment options aside from just biting your tongue that work for most people, which may help you significantly. And there may be other diagnoses. But that's for a psychiatrist to determine.
Those are not necessarily minor rules errors, but many experienced DMs will have a "policy" for how rule discussions/challenges will be handled in their game which you should be familiar with (and they should have told you, but people forget things). Frequently it's along the lines of "Have a page number ready," or "Save it for after the session and we'll fix it for next time."
Also, talk with your DM, explain you have a condition of some kind but that you are trying to improve.
I can't know what makes you sound offensive to them from that though really, and/or you may be overthinking things. But slight tweaks in your method of presentation often have huge effects on the receptivity of your target.
Tone of voice, friendliness, "nonthreatening" (to authority) word choice, appropriate openings and so on. Avoid criticism or judgment. Couching your statement in what may seem to you as false humility can also make comments more easily accepted as nonthreatening. Don't throw a barrage all at once.
(Pick up "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's slightly less sinister than the title sounds, and really helps you communicate more effectively with some simple steps.)
"I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's so-and-so," even if you feel 100% sure you're absolutely correct and you have the book open in front of you. But you're not really lying, there's always at least the possibility you are mistaken when you don't think you are, and errata/rules updates can change things right under your nose -- or you might have stepped into the Twilight Zone on your way back from the bathroom ><;. Respect their "policy" on rules issues though.
Stealth is an issue that is just really confusing for a lot of people, because it has changed substantially from what was originally printed via rules updates, and it is not necessarily intuitive in any event. It's relatively minor most of the time though, and you can just pretend a certain monster is just "so good" at it that yeah, he really is automatically "hidden." It's really rare you fight invisible enemies anyhow, and you can make a Perception check with a Minor action. Probably not worth bringing up.
Write down issues you notice in a special place in your notes so you can feel like you "get it out of your system," and won't forget to ever bring it up again. You can then communicate after the session several of the more "important" issues (via the "policy") while trying to leave out the minor ones for another time. Limit yourself to the number of challenges you have "available" in a given session (the DM may even be willing to help set a number), so you "pick your battles" more effectively and seem less annoying to others.
I can feel you as a new player being overexcited, and as the guy at the table that usually knows the rules best.
But in my experience most ruling "mistakes" or things you strongly disagree with as a player, are essentially one-time events when the DM has to make a ruling and keep on moving, or when rules don't adequately cover a situation. Sometimes it's more fun to not follow the rules.
That's part of the DM's job, and he/she can bend reality if they think it will help the session; and you have to have some level of faith in a DM until proven you shouldn't, or else you should think about leaving his/her game if you can't discuss it rationally.
You may also try to keep your thoughts on the game's handling to yourself for a couple of sessions until you can gauge the people's reactions better, and for them to get more used to your presence in general. Not always necessary, but it's a "better safe than sorry" thing with joining a long term group composed of strangers. Something like you have to become a member of the tribe before you can guide its policy.
How do you tell someone they're not doing it right? Give us an example of your regular "you're wrong; I'm right" dialogue, and maybe we can help you figure out a way to change what you say or how you say it so that you get your point across without making the other players angry at you for correcting them.
Sometimes it's as easy as using words that imply you're not the authority, like, "I don't think that's how that works" instead of "that's not how it works."
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
No, it's not. ADHD has several different presentations, one of which is characterized not by attention-deficit behaviors but by hyperactivity and impulsivity.
OP, your best bet is to start DMing. That way you can use your rules-lawyer powers for good, instead of evil! You might also find that the challenges of DMing--composing encounters, building monsters, drawing maps, &c.--are more expansive, more appealing, and more able to absorb your focus than the challenges of playing. (Be careful not to over-indulge, of course, but you knew that already.)
If you enjoy playing too much to stop, you might try keeping a list instead of speaking up. It's just standard displacement activity, but it's quiet and unobtrusive; it would be make you even more of a jerk than if you spoke up, if you ever showed the list to anyone, which you won't. It can be either a list of specific objections, like "he used acrobatics instead of athletics for a jump check!" or a set of more general guidelines for prepping/running a session, like "review likely skills for movement skills before session".
That being said, as for what to do when it does come up, as others have said, its all about how you state it. Consider a couple of examples:
1) The fighter's mark doesn't work like that, the creature still gets to shift.
2) Are you sure that's how the fighter's mark works? I thought that he only prevented the movement if the attack was triggered by an Opportunity Attack. If its a shift, I thought the fighter got to swing, but the monster still moves?
Both statements say essentially the same thing. However, statement #1 is much more confrontational. This is even worse if you are dealing with someone who doesn't really know you very well and who may not be aware of your situation. The second statement implies that you are not sure, and that the DM could be right, but it also gives him an out if he wants to look it up to make sure he gets it right. In fact, since its the DM who is being "disadvantaged" by the ruling, he might be even more inclined to look it up now.
Also, try to keep in mind that with over two dozen books released to date, and roughly 90 pages of eratta, very few people will actually know the rules front to back, inside and out. Even those of us who have been playing 4th Ed. fairly regularly since its release are likely "mistaken" on certain rules. In the end though, most groups just choose to go with the flow as best they can because looking up every situation that comes up just grinds the game to a halt.
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
This wasn't really a thread about my ADHD so I didn't go into more detail than to mention it in passing, but I can see your point.
What I meant was the following:
I have ADHD. It makes it very hard for me to focus on some things (work, schoolwork, housework, errands, etc) because I simply can not take my mind off of things like D&D, movies/tv shows I like, etc. It even affects me in social situations because I can't take my mind off of things that other people I interact with just aren't interested in.
Now, because I am constantly thinking about D&D, I'm thinking about and re-thinking about rules and tactics and campaign ideas, and that last Dragon article I read, how to distribute treasure, what the next module in Scales of War will be like... I'm constantly coming back to the D&D site and rereading my D&D books etc. Due to this I tend to know a lot of the D&D rules. This is a side-effect of ADHD.
ADHD is different than ADD, and can manifest in different ways. I hope this clears your confusion.
On topic: Most of the time I DM, so it's not an issue (except when I have to explain to players how their powers really work.
) I don't play in any regular games, but I've been considering trying to get into one. I do like the advice given of just writing the errors down, keeping them to myself, and telling myself it's a house rule. This could actually be a very entertaining way to take care of the problem as I can then take those house rules home and see how they affect my character and what new fun things I can do with him. :D
(Pick up "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's slightly less sinister than the title sounds, and really helps you communicate more effectively with some simple steps.)
Buying this today. It sounds too interesting to pass up. Maybe it will help with the issues detailed below:
Just to elaborate on why people think I'm a douchebag sometimes:
It's not necessarily what I say, it's how I say it. Most people don't get my humor. They can't tell when I'm joking or being serious. So, a lot of times I come off as though I'm criticizing or insulting someone when I'm just joking around with them. I have a problem with my tone. When I try to change my tone, I feel like I come off as fake and patronizing. When I explain things to people, they tell me that I'm act like they're stupid and don't know anything (which is a good thing if you work in a customer service field, but bad when dealing with your friends).
I have yet to find a way to properly moderate my tone to something non-offensive. Maybe I need to go to a class or something. :P
For new groups I play in, I start with "Oh? Is this a house-rule?" when I encounter something wrong.
- Emphasizes I'm new and that it's not the actual rule.
- Clarifies if they in fact knew about it and it is a house-rule or not.
Other times I'd be "reading" over the rulebook and go, "Uh, guys? We've been doing wrong. Book and errata says this. Can we start implementing this next session?"
- Just like with any touchy subject matter between people in a personal or working relationship, It's important to say "We" instead of "You/You Guys" as it's not accusing and more of an acceptance that y'all messed up and ready to drop some knowledge for everyone to benefit.
- Also get compendium and new updates available to be checked on and referenced to.
- Always get the DM to rule on this matter. It's very possible he and rest of party knew about it and prefers the house-rule more
However, when I play games, I feel a need to point out when a DM doesn't use a rule correctly. Like if they treat invisible enemies as hidden automatically, or they think charging is a move action and you can do it from one square away. Lots of little things.
Those are little things? Maybe I'm a jerkish rules-lawyer too. Little things to me would be if a player wanted to have a certain power pull rather than push due to the unique environment, or maybe if they wanted to use a power a certain way on an object that behaves uniquely. Or trip a guy without having a specific power for it (as a DM I just make people spend an action point). The things you're suggesting alter the fundamental rules. That can't be little, can it?
If you don't wanna come off like a jerk, don't act like a jerk. And if you're not acting like a jerk and they're still upset, then you're not at fault. But it's easy to be a jerk when you stop the game to tell the referee that he's doing it wrong. I would suggest biting your tongue, so to speak, but writing down every rule transgression you find. At the end of the session, show the DM your list and ask him if these are things he changed and will be a constant houserule, or he simply forgot. Don't approach him with the idea that you're right and he's wrong, approach him like a student to a teacher: patient, open-minded, and aware that the rules as written aren't the only way to play, and certainly not the only ideal way.
I don't really get the hubub, but I guess it depends on the group. If I had a friend who had encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, I'd use that to my advantage while DMing. I'd ask such a person how everything works and I'd be a-okay with this person interjecting to point out the rules.
Like a slinky. You push down the stairs, you expect it to go down the stairs. But if it stops, you have to go and push it again. This is with in the normal expected behavior of the slinky vs the stairs. However if the slinky suddenly goes up the stairs, and punches you in the face...
The first thing I would tell you I guess is to remember that ultimately, the DM decides the rules, not the books.
Wrong. The rules are the rules. The DM's job is not to pick which rules to use but rather to adjucate the use of the rules. IF you and the players find a rule which is potentially broken, and not working the way you'd like it, to fix the rule for the game.
NOTE: I said you and the players.
A DM that says "ok fighters are to strong so they don't get scale mail, shields, or military ranged weapons, get 12 hp instead of 15 at level 1 and only gain 4hp per level there after." is wrong.
But, if a DM and players like the old 3rd rule of standing provokes and they want to bring it back. More power to THEM. Not the DM.
I'm very thankful to Gary Gygax for being instrumental to the invent of Dungeons and Dragins, but his "The DM is always right, and can do whatever he wants" attitude, theory or game style is not right.
So in conclusion, rules are rules for a reason. People that play and don't know the rules aren't doing anything wrong. But, if a player at the table corrects the broken or misused rule, then everyone should be thankful said player was there, and move on.
If two people have a different opinion of the rule as written the GM as the final say chooses which version to use to keep the game moving.
However, when I play games, I feel a need to point out when a DM doesn't use a rule correctly. Like if they treat invisible enemies as hidden automatically, or they think charging is a move action and you can do it from one square away. Lots of little things.
Those are little things? Maybe I'm a jerkish rules-lawyer too. Little things to me would be if a player wanted to have a certain power pull rather than push due to the unique environment, or maybe if they wanted to use a power a certain way on an object that behaves uniquely. Or trip a guy without having a specific power for it (as a DM I just make people spend an action point). The things you're suggesting alter the fundamental rules. That can't be little, can it?
If you don't wanna come off like a jerk, don't act like a jerk. And if you're not acting like a jerk and they're still upset, then you're not at fault. But it's easy to be a jerk when you stop the game to tell the referee that he's doing it wrong. I would suggest biting your tongue, so to speak, but writing down every rule transgression you find. At the end of the session, show the DM your list and ask him if these are things he changed and will be a constant houserule, or he simply forgot. Don't approach him with the idea that you're right and he's wrong, approach him like a student to a teacher: patient, open-minded, and aware that the rules as written aren't the only way to play, and certainly not the only ideal way.
I don't really get the hubub, but I guess it depends on the group. If I had a friend who had encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, I'd use that to my advantage while DMing. I'd ask such a person how everything works and I'd be a-okay with this person interjecting to point out the rules.
Page 42 of the DMG has guidelines for creating an attack that has a status penalty instead of damage. ie "I want to sweep his legs out from under him" DM looks at page 42 and says ok roll dex vs reflex, you hit a 17 wow, grats he's on the ground.
Very rarely do people break the rules in a way that hurts them, normally they do things they shouldn't be allowed to.
If your griping over a fellow player breaking the rules, don't say anything. All you're doing is spoiling thier fun for no good reason.
If on the other hand your DM or another player is hurting your character, then yes, say something. YOu won't be seen as a douche-bag if your defending yourself.
I once played with a guy who made a monk who used a bunch of diffrent game editions to make him have like twenty attacks. Of course none of this was legal in the books, but it didn't hurt me, so i didn't say anything.
But - and this is important - if the issue isn't critically important, such as making the difference between TPK and not, don't stop the game for rules issues. Rules lawyering can be helpful if it takes a backseat to actually playing the game. Take notes to talk about later if you need to.
Just don't joke with people when you don't know each other. It's often not worth it. You have to learn your audience first. Don't just shoot blindly, because you're liable to miss a lot.
I would try to pay attention to see if you're doing something like grinning or giggling constantly, or frequently, as you entertain your own thoughts, when nobody else finds things at present to be amusing.
You can try mimicking actors. Try to see what tones and expressions they use when they're supposed to be supportive or whatever.
Say different stuff to yourself in the mirror and watch your face and mouth, and any other body movements that might be distracting.
Your computer might have voice recording software installed already, and all you would need is like a $5 microphone and you can record yourself saying things. If you got a computer from one of the big producers they probably gave you one for free with their crappy mouse and mousepad. People are often shocked when they hear their own voice, because it sounds different when it isn't vibrating your entire skull while you're talking, and actually goes floating around the room.
EDIT: People are often more understanding than you would think, if you appear to be sincere with them about things and that you don't intend to offend them or such.
He is running scales of war and doing a fine job. Some of the rules change a bit to the situation at hand. He then blurts out what its suppose to be instead of thinking..well it may not work that way right now.
A good example was we were talking about flanking. If someone had reach can the flank one step away. He blurts out "if they have threating reach they can flank"
I turned around and had a confused dog look I said " what!? that has nothing to do with flanking. It's about opptunity attack."
I could tell he was slightly annoyed that I contrudicted him.
And god help me if I look up a rule that he is certin about. I finally told him it's not I don't believe, but I always need to confirm things if I am not sure.
anyway point of that is don't blurt out rules because its disrespectful. Just say "the rule is normally this, is this situation special?"
Because it bugs me when he does that and I know a bit mroe about rules then he does. Just from visiting these boards often I get more exposre to it
I'm very new to D&D. I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy. D&D 4th edition is something I've become hyperfocused on. I read the books for the rules, I go to rules forums and FAQs, etc.
This all serves me well when I DM games.
However, when I play games, I feel a need to point out when a DM doesn't use a rule correctly. Like if they treat invisible enemies as hidden automatically, or they think charging is a move action and you can do it from one square away. Lots of little things.
The problem is, I find myself unable to not sound like a douchebag. You know that guy that corrects what you're doing without being asked to? I sound like that guy. I have no desire to be hated. But I also can't stand watching DMs use rules wrong. I can't even come to them after the game and talk to them about it without coming off like a douche.
These DMs I'm talking about aren't necessarily my friends (yet), some are friends of friends.
Any advice?
First, you really, really have to accept and internalize one thing. The DM might be getting the rule wrong, or he might be changing the rule. You have to accept that DMs can do this and it's TOTALLY OK.
After that, I would recommend asking, as sincerely as possible, for a clarification of how the rule works. This is not an opportunity to be sarcastic or snarky. If you aren't being a douche, you should genuinely want to know if the DM has chosen to change the rule. It is always his option.
If the DM allows the monster to charge from one square away, then ask, "Is this a special ability of the monster?"
If he says no, follow up. "So, we can all charge from 1 square away?"
Don't argue, and don't correct. Ask about what is a modification from the "standard game rules" and accept and adapt. If the DM is getting the rule wrong, this will get him to look at it, or give you an opening to explain it. If he's decided to change the rule, this will make it clear to you (and the other players).
The only times you should argue are:
When the DM claims that a variant IS the standard rule. When someone makes a positive claim (Charging in 4e is from 1 square away, not 2), then you can contradict them without seeming like a douche. Simply present the actual rule (don't quote it). They have taken the initiative to make the claim, so you didn't start an argument. You asked an honest question, and the DM responded with something factually incorrect.
When the DM doesn't apply the rules (either standard rules, or his variants) consistently. The DM has the opportunity (you gave it to him, remember) to create a variant rule for this monster/encounter/situation, but chose NOT to do so. Therefore, I think it's more than fair to argue at this point. The DM is either mistaken (he forgot his new rule, or the regular rule) or deliberately misleading (he told you something was a rule and knew that it wasn't). Be polite, but argue away. Remember that you aren't arguing about the "official rules". You are arguing about the DM not consistently using his own rules (whether official or variant).
In most cases, I don't think it usually comes to arguing. If you point out politely when something is different than you expect, it gives the DM an easy opportunity to do one of three things:
Check the rule and correct himself.
Create a variant rule and share it with everyone.
Check the rule and correct YOU (because you might be wrong, instead).
Now, if you are playing with a DM who simply doesn't follow rules (and many DMs do this, to a greater or lesser extent), you might need to either find a new game or learn to relax. Some DMs don't care whether something is in the rules or not. They follow the "Rule of Cool". If it's cool, it happens. If it isn't cool, then it doesn't. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but I suspect it is not going to be something that is conducive to your enjoyment of the game.
It's my personality that I want the players to correct me if I'm doing something "wrong" by the rules. Those times I am intentionally "bending" the rules I'll just say something like, "But this one can do that." Usually I'll anticipate the questions and explain it before the players even ask, assuming I'm doing it on purpose by design (which I rarely do though).
However, some DMs don't want to be questioned no matter what.
So try to figure it out with the DM in question. That's why asking him/her is best.
(Pick up "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's slightly less sinister than the title sounds, and really helps you communicate more effectively with some simple steps.)
Buying this today. It sounds too interesting to pass up. Maybe it will help with the issues detailed below:
An excellent book! Even just skimming helps you get in humanity's collective head, so to speak.
I have yet to find a way to properly moderate my tone to something non-offensive. Maybe I need to go to a class or something. :P
There've got to be people who teach this stuff. I've heard that life coaches can be helpful in many ways. Also, there's always psychologists. Either of them might cost you a bit of dough, though I've no idea how much.
Do you have a good friend, who you can trust to not BS you? Or a family member? If all else fails, get them to help you.
I can't stand playing in games where the DM gets the rules wrong, so I run into this a lot.
Usually I will tell the DM up front. "Hey, I am a bit of a rules lawyer, I try to keep my mouth shut during the game, but it will probably slip out if, at minimum via facial expressions. What I will do to help me keep quiet is this; I will keep a running list of rules questions I have. I will assume you know the rules, and forgot to mention your house rules to me, and I will ask you about them after the game."
Then after the game, I bring up stuff like "I noticed you let people charge from one square away? Did you change this in your games?"
Often times DMs appreciate it, especially newer ones. Some didn't realize they were using a house rule, and would prefer to do it the raw way (A player swore to them it was legit a while back and they have run with it or something). Some DMs simply say "Yeah I house rule a lot of things, here are the big ones I can think of.
I also get a heads up at this time if I want to continue playing with them. 2 responses tell me no right away. "Yeah, I'm not too concerned with the rules, and I tend to just do make it up as I go", or simply getting angry at this.
I also ask for all house rules up front before the game, just in case they keep a printed handout or something.
I can't stand playing in games where the DM gets the rules wrong, so I run into this a lot.
Usually I will tell the DM up front. "Hey, I am a bit of a rules lawyer, I try to keep my mouth shut during the game, but it will probably slip out if, at minimum via facial expressions. What I will do to help me keep quiet is this; I will keep a running list of rules questions I have. I will assume you know the rules, and forgot to mention your house rules to me, and I will ask you about them after the game."
Then after the game, I bring up stuff like "I noticed you let people charge from one square away? Did you change this in your games?"
Often times DMs appreciate it, especially newer ones. Some didn't realize they were using a house rule, and would prefer to do it the raw way (A player swore to them it was legit a while back and they have run with it or something). Some DMs simply say "Yeah I house rule a lot of things, here are the big ones I can think of.
I also get a heads up at this time if I want to continue playing with them. 2 responses tell me no right away. "Yeah, I'm not too concerned with the rules, and I tend to just do make it up as I go", or simply getting angry at this.
I also ask for all house rules up front before the game, just in case they keep a printed handout or something.
I hate house rules. With some exceptions. If your house rule is fun, and doesn't take things away from me they're fine.
Something fun would be like..."When you roll a 1 on an attack roll roll a d8 and move one square in the random direction indicated."
When you roll a 20 on attack rolls you may also spend a healing surge! (helpful in games with non-heal heavy leaders or no leaders)
Added skill use. If you roll a DC 25 Heal Check on a target that target can spend a healing surge even if they've used their second wind.
I don't mind when my players tell me i am wrong.. I make mistakes , i forget things. sometimes i will stop the game to look it up, sometimes i will accept there interpretation on the spot or stick with my understanding.. in all cases , i have the party note taker , take a note; then its to be looked up between games.
but as someone said above.. go to your fellow players / DM.. tell them your issue, that you worry your coming ac crossed wrong , and ask them how they want you to address rules issue.
For me, the real trick with helping on this, is that the culture at each game table is a bit different. thus there customs and how they want things handled will be also different.
Just to elaborate on why people think I'm a douchebag sometimes:
It's not necessarily what I say, it's how I say it. Most people don't get my humor. They can't tell when I'm joking or being serious. So, a lot of times I come off as though I'm criticizing or insulting someone when I'm just joking around with them. I have a problem with my tone. When I try to change my tone, I feel like I come off as fake and patronizing. When I explain things to people, they tell me that I'm act like they're stupid and don't know anything (which is a good thing if you work in a customer service field, but bad when dealing with your friends).
I have yet to find a way to properly moderate my tone to something non-offensive. Maybe I need to go to a class or something. :P
First of all, are you sure that the DM is just making mistakes or is he just running it with fairly loose rules? I tend to loosen up rules for the games that I run a bit and tend to let the rule of cool override RAW at times. If he's a little inconsistent and the mistakes tend to allow for more action rather than hinder action, he may just be one of those DM's who are loose with the rules. If he just makes the same mistakes over and over again, it could be either house rules or he does not know the rule in question.
If you do find that the DM appears to just simply do not know the rule in question, you can consult another player about the way the DM rules on those incidents. If the other player agrees, you could ask him how you can approach the DM or ask that player to approach the DM himself. The other players in your group may have a better handle on the etiquitte of the DM and how best to approach the DM regarding these issues.
Pretty much the steps I would recommend when thinking about joining a group that is more than a one-shot, or RPGA thing or something, is to ask the DM if it's alright to just observe the game for a while first. You need at least the DM's permission and preferably at least make a gesture of asking the players as well.
The downside is that it makes the people in the room feel a bit weird, and they may act differently. You can help that by introducing yourself to everyone, state your intent, that you just want to see the game as normal before joining (it's to everyone's benefit rather than you joining and then quitting). Be personable and stay away from the table a bit (not a lot) and quiet.
It's "extra" weird if you just come in say, off the street, and go, "Is it alright if I observe your game a while? Thanks." and just sit in a corner watching them. That's much more disruptive than introducing yourself first.
But really, observing in advance isn't always an option for a number of reasons.
I think there should be a bit of an interview in any event.
If you definitely want to join the game, communicate with the DM about his game, not during the actual session. Get a rundown of what's been going on (it's a pain to just hop in and have no idea what's happening).
Ask about his/her style in terms of loose criteria like "heavy roleplay" or "light roleplay," "heavy/light combat," about the makeup of the group in terms of optimizing, about Alignment (good, evil or both?), and whether there are frequently sessions with absolutely zero combats for instance (issue for a lot of people, I'm assuming it would be for you too).
Talk to the other players too a bit if you can.
Ask about any house rules that are being used, and pay attention to things and ask about ones you don't quite understand.
Get the makeup of the existing PCs in the adventuring party.
Try to figure out with the DM where a good place to work your character into the game would be, not just the location he joins but where he might have come from. Have your own suggestions of course, and a couple of different character concepts to pitch. It's really a drag to just have to sit a while until the DM determines a "good point" for you to enter, especially if the PCs get sidetracked or stuck in a really long fight.
Some/most(?) DMs may be eager or willing to work with you to make your character directly relevant to the other PCs in terms of the story, so that you are integrated more smoothly than "You see a guy. He wants to join you. OK he's in the group now." Not only does it make the joining aspect more believable, but also allows your character to interact with the other PCs a bit first and get to know each other.
I'm fairly certain most DMs are excited to talk about their game to other people (who don't seem like they'll just make fun of things), though sometimes a bit shy. Don't try to do it right at the beginning or end of a session though, it's hard on the DM to give attention to you adequately.
Yeah it may be somewhat bothersome to some DMs to answer questions they may never have heard from prospective players (surprisingly common). But as long as you're looking happy and not judging them, and genuinely are interested, they will see that and put in some effort to accommodate. It's better for everyone to make sure you mesh fairly well in advance.
Ultimately deciding not to join would be best handled by, "Thank you very much for talking with me, but I don't think I'd be a good match for your game right now."
Sort of like, "It's not you, it's me."
IE, on the charging thing, don't say anything when the monster charges from one step away. Wait until it's your turn, and you're one square away from the monster, and say something like "I shift and attack I guess. Can't charge, it's too close"
Pretty much the steps I would recommend when thinking about joining a group that is more than a one-shot, or RPGA thing or something, is to ask the DM if it's alright to just observe the game for a while first. You need at least the DM's permission and preferably at least make a gesture of asking the players as well.
I really like this idea. Personally I don't think it would be too crazy for you to ask to come to the next session, and make your character there. That way you can get a good grip of player/PC personalities and make one that is a fun addition to the party. The side benefit being that you can get a good idea how the DM rules the games, without investing too much energy into an entire session. You won't have the awkward "Well that guy joined for a session, so we worked him in, but now have to work him back out of the plot", if it doesn't work out.
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
Lol.
(Pick up "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's slightly less sinister than the title sounds, and really helps you communicate more effectively with some simple steps.)
Buying this today. It sounds too interesting to pass up. Maybe it will help with the issues detailed below:
Just to elaborate on why people think I'm a douchebag sometimes:
It's not necessarily what I say, it's how I say it. Most people don't get my humor. They can't tell when I'm joking or being serious. So, a lot of times I come off as though I'm criticizing or insulting someone when I'm just joking around with them. I have a problem with my tone. When I try to change my tone, I feel like I come off as fake and patronizing. When I explain things to people, they tell me that I'm act like they're stupid and don't know anything (which is a good thing if you work in a customer service field, but bad when dealing with your friends).
I have yet to find a way to properly moderate my tone to something non-offensive. Maybe I need to go to a class or something. :P
From what I'm reading it seems that one of your challenges here isn't just that you're a rules lawyer but how you express that.
A few suggestions from my years studying NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) and hypnosis may be helpful. I haven't read How to Make Friends and Influence People (lol I too have been put off by the title) but these tips may very well be in that book.
People tend to speak in one of four modalities. Visual (sight) Auditory (hearing) and Kinesthetic (feeling) as well as a fourth, generally called Auditory Digital. (I'll get to the last one in a minute.)
Visual people will tend to use "predicates" (words which give you a clue to how they experience the world) that relate to sight: "I see what you mean," "Look at this," "Is that clear?"
Auditory people use sound words and phrases: "That rings a bell," "That doesn't sound good," "I don't like your tone."
Kinesthetic people use feeling words, "Did you grasp that?" "I have a bad feeling about this," "I can't get a hand on what he wants."
Auditory digital is a bit more challenging to explain. The best way I can put it is "Spockian dialect". AD people will use words related to the mind such as "understanding," "It's not logical," "That makes sense."
What does this mean for you? Figure out what "language" or "modal system" your DM is speaking in and then use the same language back to him.
For example, your DM is visual, try saying, "I'm not sure I see where that makes sense according to the rules." If your DM is auditory, "I hear what your saying, but how does this sound...?" If you've got a kinesthetic DM, "I'm trying to get a grip on how you rule things." For an auditory digital DM try, "I'm trying to understand the logic of your rules system."
As silly as it seems, you'll probably find that just using their own language back at them will make them much more receptive to what you have to say. With your ADHD, you can actually excel at this particular communication game if you choose to do so.
Sandwiching:
This is especially good for after game discussions. Sandwiching is a technique used to offer information that's "not happy" in between slices of "happy" to make it more palatable to the person getting the information, and thus more receptive.
State something good. State your problem. State something else good.
For example: "I had a great time at your D&D session tonight. I especially loved the RP session in the tavern, the barmaid had me screaming with laughter. One thing, you made a ruling about XYZ and it occurred to me that the book says.... (State your rules problem here.) I can't wait to come back next week, I'm really looking forward to seeing how the situation with the merchant turns out."
"Yes and":
There are two words that tend to throw humans off their tracks, "no" and "but". Use those words alone and you create tension. Use those words together and you immediately set someone up to argue with you. "Yes and" subverts those barriers. For example, when you're trying to argue some rules issue, instead of saying, "but the rules say this," try, "yes, I see (or hear or feel, depending on the DM's modality) what you're saying, and as I understand it the rule works this way." As part of my training I once spent a month focused on saying "yes, and" rather than "no, but" and I was amazed how much easier people were to work with.
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
100% correct.
My advice. If you MUST offer corrections, write down mistakes and bring them up to the DM AFTER the game is over. This will avoid being rude and possibly destroying the flow of the game and the DMsconfidence and train of thought. The exception to this is if the DM screws up bad enough to get you killed or the screw up would result in the loss of a hard earned reward. (items) In which case, speak up quickly, but be polite.
As a player, I keep my mouth shut until the end of the game or until a mistake has been made that I cannot allow. (i.e lethal mistakes) As a DM, I encourage my players to help me with the rules for two reasons. (1) It keeps me on my toes and ensures the rulings are correct. (2) It helps teach the players what the rules are.
Our games are anything but perfect. For example, we were screwing up with OA's and the slowed condition. We original thought OA's only provoked when we moved AWAY from the enemy, out of an adjacent square. We believed we could run circles around an enemy without OA's provoking. We also thought Slowed reduced movement to 1 square.
Sometimes rules get read wrong, forgotten, mixed up or interpreted incorrectly. Mistakes happen, especially when you get smashed while you play. Sometimes, as a DM, I enjoy screwing up a rule on purpose just to see if the players remember. ( prone rules are a great test) Although most of the time, I try to run the game correctly and find a bit of pride in knowing what the hell I'm doing. (which is a gamble after 3 shots of tequila and a 6 pack)
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
100% correct.
My advice. If you MUST offer corrections, write down mistakes and bring them up to the DM AFTER the game is over. This will avoid being rude and possibly destroying the flow of the game and the DMsconfidence and train of thought. The exception to this is if the DM screws up bad enough to get you killed or the screw up would result in the loss of a hard earned reward. (items) In which case, speak up quickly, but be polite.
As a player, I keep my mouth shut until the end of the game or until a mistake has been made that I cannot allow. (i.e lethal mistakes) As a DM, I encourage my players to help me with the rules for two reasons. (1) It keeps me on my toes and ensures the rulings are correct. (2) It helps teach the players what the rules are.
Not doing it at all? Bad advice, I'd say. Though at the same time, NEVER interrupt gameplay unless the rule issue is critical, say, getting it right would avoid a TPK. Outside of that? After the game, always, unless the DM expresses uncertainty - even then, it's best to have a temporary ruling and look it up later so that you can just get on with it.
But not at all, ever? Really?
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
100% correct.
My advice. If you MUST offer corrections, write down mistakes and bring them up to the DM AFTER the game is over. This will avoid being rude and possibly destroying the flow of the game and the DMsconfidence and train of thought. The exception to this is if the DM screws up bad enough to get you killed or the screw up would result in the loss of a hard earned reward. (items) In which case, speak up quickly, but be polite.
As a player, I keep my mouth shut until the end of the game or until a mistake has been made that I cannot allow. (i.e lethal mistakes) As a DM, I encourage my players to help me with the rules for two reasons. (1) It keeps me on my toes and ensures the rulings are correct. (2) It helps teach the players what the rules are.
Not doing it at all? Bad advice, I'd say. Though at the same time, NEVER interrupt gameplay unless the rule issue is critical, say, getting it right would avoid a TPK. Outside of that? After the game, always, unless the DM expresses uncertainty - even then, it's best to have a temporary ruling and look it up later so that you can just get on with it.
But not at all, ever? Really?
That is not what I said at all. I bolded the parts you seemed to have missed.
I'm very new to D&D. ...
Any advice?
Stop doing it. It's not your job, or place.
100% correct.
My advice. If you MUST offer corrections, write down mistakes and bring them up to the DM AFTER the game is over. This will avoid being rude and possibly destroying the flow of the game and the DMsconfidence and train of thought. The exception to this is if the DM screws up bad enough to get you killed or the screw up would result in the loss of a hard earned reward. (items) In which case, speak up quickly, but be polite.
As a player, I keep my mouth shut until the end of the game or until a mistake has been made that I cannot allow. (i.e lethal mistakes) As a DM, I encourage my players to help me with the rules for two reasons. (1) It keeps me on my toes and ensures the rulings are correct. (2) It helps teach the players what the rules are.
Not doing it at all? Bad advice, I'd say. Though at the same time, NEVER interrupt gameplay unless the rule issue is critical, say, getting it right would avoid a TPK. Outside of that? After the game, always, unless the DM expresses uncertainty - even then, it's best to have a temporary ruling and look it up later so that you can just get on with it.
But not at all, ever? Really?
That is not what I said at all. I bolded the parts you seemed to have missed.
Yes, your post meanders a bit. Says it's 100% correct, then that it's not. :P
Now, major lethal issues are the common sense exception I think the vast majority of people would agree on. Frankly? Worth dismissing from the conversation - though I did explicitly agree on that point. To be clear, I was just trying to say I draw the line at a different point. Realistically, I don't think it's fair to expect ANYONE at the table to be absolutely 100% accurate on all rules all the time, and the DM should be mature enough to recognize if he has made a mistake. One policy I've seen stated on this site is actually to default to ruling in the party's favour on rules issues, and looking it up later, major issues aside. I'd say this is good, because even minor losses due to rules mistakes will always make a player feel cheated.
(I'm also in the middle of exams. Clarity of posts may suffer.)
Yes, your post meanders a bit. Says it's 100% correct, then that it's not. :P
Ok, if we want to get anal about it, 99.999% of the time, with the rare exception.
Now, major lethal issues are the common sense exception I think the vast majority of people would agree on.
Which was the exception to my 100% (now see 99.999%)
Someone else can do the math if it's that important for the example, but I think you get the point.
typically, I'll write down rules infractions and inform the DM after the game, but some- especially when they're really really cheap or stupid, I'll take a stand on. Will I look like an arse? Maybe, but sometimes rules mistakes really upset my enjoyment of the game.
As a note, I have nothing wrong with house rules in general, so long as the DM declares them at the start, and they're not completely arbitrary masturbatory self empowerment fapping on the part of the DM. Hell, I can even stand if he makes some up on the fly, so long as he informs us.
ie: "Well, it looks like you guys aren't hitting the monsters so well- I'm going to give you a +1 per tier bonus to hit." (this was prior to the expertise feats)
What I can't stand is when a DM assumes he is right over a rules issue and refuses to even discuss the possibility that he had misread the rule or remembered it incorrectly. One DM I had, whom fortunately I was under only for three sessions, was like this. Registered RPGA DM whom had serious issues understanding certain rules, mainly due to a self-determined sense of 'cheap'
When I attempted to ask him if a given rule was a 'house rule', he told me 'nope, that's the way it works normally.' when I showed him that this was not the case, he told me to leave the game and never come back, even though he was the *guest DM*
The issue in question was, hilariously, something really, really dumb: I was running a rageblood barbarian using a fullblade and howling strike, and I had the feat that let me charge when I would normally get my rampage feature. He decided that it was, writ god, *illegal* to use howling strike on a charge, becuase 'wizards of the coast wouldn't possibly publish something so cheap.'
Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, if he had said "that looks really cheap, I'm going to make it a house rule that you can't do that."- but it was the self righteous "THIS IS LAW, THIS IS HOW THE GOOD BOOK SAYETH, DON'T BE ANGRY AT ME, BE ANGRY AT WotC!" view that he took.
Generally, having someone who is a walking rules encyclopedia is quite useful to a DM, but at the same time, such a person is also very useful to the players, even the cheaty players, because they're a good measurement for how flexible the DM is. DMs who react badly to *any* attempt to clarify the rules system or otherwise figure out what's going on? Not *usually* good DMs for a longtime game.
Though, if I did something different to what's in the rules, I'd likely just quickly explain why and then get on with the game.
Yes, your post meanders a bit. Says it's 100% correct, then that it's not. :P
Ok, if we want to get anal about it, 99.999% of the time, with the rare exception.
Now, major lethal issues are the common sense exception I think the vast majority of people would agree on.
Which was the exception to my 100% (now see 99.999%)
Someone else can do the math if it's that important for the example, but I think you get the point.
And my point, centrally, was that in genereal, these kinds of corrections on things that are not stated house-rules can be very, very good. If 99% of the time they don't interrupt the game.
House-rules are well and good, but need to be stated up front. So, if something is not a stated house-rule, and not right with the rules, it's likely an error. A DM should be able to hear and respond to these sorts of corrections, though obviously at the right time.
Any advice?
Yes.
1) You need to realize that DMs are free to alter rules as they please.
They aren't "wrong". They aren't cheating. And they do not owe any explanation.
2) Learning when to roll with it is a valuable thing.
Not every little rules varience demands a challenge.
Let's take an easy example. In 4e, 'invisible' is not the same as 'hidden'; you know what square an invisible creature is in and can attack it, albeit with a stiff penalty for melee or ranged attacks. Let's say Bob the DM isn't aware of this, and has been using the rules for being hidden on invisible creatures, requiring players to guess what square to target if they don't make a Perception check. If Bob is unaware that he's doing it wrong (and he is), he should be told, politely ... the telling player, however, should be prepared for Bob to say he prefers doing it that way and will continue to do so, and drop the matter. At that point, it goes from a rules mistake to a house rule.
The GM can alter the rules, but he should be aware of what the rules are before he alters them.
Any advice?
Yes.
1) You need to realize that DMs are free to alter rules as they please.
They aren't "wrong". They aren't cheating. And they do not owe any explanation.
2) Learning when to roll with it is a valuable thing.
Not every little rules varience demands a challenge.
Not unless they inform me first. I'm not talking some sort of crutch setting specific changes. If you say "No dwarves in my game" I'll say ok and move on. But if later I try and use acrobatics to decrease the damage I take from falling and you say "No acrobats in my world" I have a huge problem, say what? You can't use thievery to pick pockets? What? OMG Wizards need bat guano and sulfer to cast fire ball you don't have any...yeah say what? No you're gnome can't use fade away it's a magic spell to go invisible and you need an eye lash and gum arabic to do it. So you're still hit by the 9d6 fireball....again say what?
This gygaxian antquated belief that the DM can do whatever he wants and you are his pawns at the table is horse rubbish and anyone that believes in that type of gaming needs to return to basic 1st edition and leave the rest of senseble people able to DM within the bounds of the rules alone.
I'm sure a table for 6 Gygaxian antiquated DM's all argueing over whether thac0 gets lowered by the strength modifier or strength modierfier's add to the d20 roll instead. Or whether a deck of many things is to powerful for a level 3 party or not. And, save vs death magic...oh you rolled a 4 well give me your sheet **rip**
Sounds like a blast!
Played with one of you Gygaxian antiquates rescently. In d20 modern. Had a case of a trucker get decapitated while on the interstate.
Do a little background checking find out this trusker was the dad of a teenage girl that died in a motorcycle accident when she ran away to elope with Johnny badass punk kid.
So we do some more research to see if any other cases like this have happened. Sure the DM says. In France a while back a motorcycle riding ghost killed x people.
Sweet a lead, we charter one of the characters private jet (her daddy owned eli lilly corp) to go to France and check the story out.
The DM goes ballistic, about "wtf you going to france omg why you tryin to ruin meh game!"
Same DM plays a character that can spend an action point to magyver anything that isn't "one use only" (aka no nukes, rules state this) He tries to use it for a flame thrower.. the DM is all "waaaah you don't have the gas or hoses needed" we read the power, had a 45 minute debate when the power you use anything available whatever.. he screams "you're trying to bend me over the table and **** me with the rules!"
No gygaxian antiquated DM we are trying to play the game. Why don't you just tell us the ONE or TWO things we can do, we'll repeat what you said we could do and you can be Mayor of crappy game world where no one has fun but you.
1) You need to realize that DMs are free to alter rules as they please.
They aren't "wrong". They aren't cheating. And they do not owe any explanation.
I had a whole thing about how much I disagree with this typed out, but it disappeared. Let me just throw out the lame "+1 to disagree with this" instead.
If the DM makes an incorrect call, I'll mention what the rule is. If it's very important and I have a book (or the compendium) handy, I might even look it up. If he obviously doesn't want to play it that way, I'll drop it and move on. If I think it will be an ongoing problem, I'll bring it up later and give him a chance to frame it as a house rule.
What I won't do is make a big confrontation out of it or argue my case at the table. I will concisely explain my position once and then let the game progress either way. Sometimes things go my way, and sometimes they don't. Usually it doesn't make much difference in the end.
It's really not hard to be a rules lawyer without being a d-bag. As far as I know, the people in all the groups I play with enjoy having me around, and for the most part they appreciate having someone at the table who can keep a lot of rules in his head.
There are two types of rules lawyer among players - the munchkin rules lawyer who can cite every rule that gives his character the slightest advantage in a situation, but conveniently forgets the rules that give his character major disadvantages; and the other type who's mostly concerned with getting things right, and will cheerfully point out the rule that means his character should have just died after all...
The most important thing as a rules lawyer of the latter kind is to avoid being mistaken for a munchkin-type lawyer - make sure to mention the letter of the rules when it disadvantages you, not just when the mistake disadvantages you (or the party) seriously. Make it clear when you're not sure if you're right, and doubly clear when/if you're suggesting a plausible ruling rather than citing an official rule. A good DM will often appreciate having a good non-munchkin rules lawyer around and treat you as a resource rather than a nuisance.
Things that can help a DM to appreciate you include asking them how they prefer to handle disagreements about the rules (the most suitable phrasing for that question depends on the individual - some prefer a stright-forward approach, while others will respond better to talking about apparent house rules rather than mistakes...) and discussing ideas you have for things your character might do in advance so you're not suddenly springing them on the DM mid-session. A warning for that last is that more adversarial DMs may take unfair advantage of that information...
Ultimately, there's no One True Way which will work with all DMs - the best you can do is try to figure out what the best approach is with your current/prospective GM - for that, sitting in on a few sessions, and talking to the GM/players are good ways to get information.
Also to CCS: DMs are certainly free to alter rules they feel, but they certainly owe an explanation when they do it mid session that turns a player's ability next to useless or out of the range that the player believed they could apply it to. If a DM did that, I'd erase the ability, flip open the PHB, and jot something new down. All's fair.
DMs are free to change the rules arbitrarily and without explanation - their role as supreme arbiter gives them that right.
As a practical matter, no they are not. That is player-losing behaviour. Players expect and are owed explanations, and to not have rule changes dropped out of the sky. Input is also a common, and fair, expectation on ambiguous rulings.
The DM is the final arbiter, but judges don't make up the laws, they interpurate the laws. The DM can overrule a rule that's causing the game to be unfun, but should only use this power if absolutely nessassary.
DMs are free to change the rules arbitrarily and without explanation - their role as supreme arbiter gives them that right.
As a practical matter, no they are not. That is player-losing behaviour. Players expect and are owed explanations, and to not have rule changes dropped out of the sky. Input is also a common, and fair, expectation on ambiguous rulings.
I notice you didn't bother to (acknowledge having) read two sentences further: "A good DM will only use their power sparingly, and will try to make sure the players are happy with the changes"
I know players who want everything run according to RAW, and I know players who are happier letting the DM handle the details, and trusting him/her to keep things running fairly - however much that requires him to fold, spindle and mutilate the rules...
I notice you didn't bother to (acknowledge having) read two sentences further: "A good DM will only use their power sparingly, and will try to make sure the players are happy with the changes"
"This statement is totally true always ..."
You mean the "except when its not" clause that followed?. I wouldn't pay it any mind either.
DMs are free to change the rules arbitrarily and without explanationA good DM will only use their power sparingly, and will try to make sure the players are happy with the changes and good players will only walk out as a last resort, and will try to resolve issues before they reach that point
"This statement is totally true always ..."You mean the "except when its not" clause that followed?. I wouldn't pay it any mind either.
DMs are free to change the rules arbitrarily and without explanationA good DM will only use their power sparingly, and will try to make sure the players are happy with the changes and good players will only walk out as a last resort, and will try to resolve issues before they reach that point
The two statements do not contradict each other in any way. One is descriptive, and the other is normative. One talks about what DMs can do, and the other about what they should do. I suspect this is at the heart of the argument about DMs changing the rules arbitrarily - one side is talking about what they can do and the other about what they should (or shouldn't) do.
DMs are free to change the rules arbitrarily and without explanation - their role as supreme arbiter gives them that right.
As a practical matter, no they are not. That is player-losing behaviour. Players expect and are owed explanations, and to not have rule changes dropped out of the sky. Input is also a common, and fair, expectation on ambiguous rulings.
I notice you didn't bother to (acknowledge having) read two sentences further: "A good DM will only use their power sparingly, and will try to make sure the players are happy with the changes"
Fair. Except that my actual point is that that concept, in effective terms, is so much BS. DM's aren't free to be tyrants at the table. They DM at the consent of the DM'd, so, while they have the POWER to make any change they want without any regard for fairness, fun, or the players, they don't have the RIGHT.
Fair. Except that my actual point is that that concept, in effective terms, is so much BS. DM's aren't free to be tyrants at the table. They DM at the consent of the DM'd, so, while they have the POWER to make any change they want without any regard for fairness, fun, or the players, they don't have the RIGHT.
Agreed.
Even in situations where the DM should use his powers to make arbitrary changes, they should be motivated by the good of the game - so while the method may sometimes be arbitrary, the intentions shouldn't be.
The two statements do not contradict each other in any way. One is descriptive, and the other is normative. One talks about what DMs can do, and the other about what they should do. I suspect this is at the heart of the argument about DMs changing the rules arbitrarily - one side is talking about what they can do and the other about what they should (or shouldn't) do.
I guess I just run on the grounds that the group is trying their best to continue playing. I mean, you are right, the DM could be a giant obnoxious prick and everyone could quit. That is true. Its also one of those "Why bother even mentioning that" statements.
Based on what can or can't be done, we jump into the realm of "The player's can just shoot the DM if he doesn't give the right loot, so DMs should probably give out the right loot". Yeah, the player's can do that, odds are they won't, and odds are even better that they wouldn't consider it.
Generally for me I pop up with the "Um..I thought It worked like such and such but I could be wrong"
Or I just focus on something else when things go off the rules. As an example,the wife of the DM used to play a wizard,but she also liked to knit while playing so she got easily distracted alot of the time. This ended up with her using dailies on minions and more often then not doing things that would set fire to half the party. After a while the DM started giving her breaks on the friendly fire rule. Thankfully later she switched to a Fighter and now has tons more fun and focuses better.
I found that by checking the book quietly did wonders for my impulses for speaking up.
Let's not confuse a rules-lawyer with an a$$hole cheater. A rules-lawyer is just concerned with the rules. When a GM is making stuff up, like abilities, feats, spells and situational rules a rules-lawyer understands or will. A GM cheating, misusing, misunderstanding, or just not know a rule is different than a GM using his power. And a rules-lawyer worth his salt gets past those moment.
An ahole is something confused with a rules-lawyer. They only pipe in with things don't go in their favor. Or the rules are what they say and nothing else.
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
No.
I lol'd
To the OP: I usually DM myself, and the one time I have gotten to PLAY 4e is when one of my players decided to give it a shot, running a paragon-level prepublished adventure. He had never DM'd before and has only played 4e.
Now:
I own more books than anyone else in my gaming group.
I know the rules better than anyone else in my gaming group.
When he was unsure about a ruling he asked me, knowing I know the rules better than anyone else in the group. When asked about a ruling, I gave him my input. But then again, he did ASK me, so my input was not unsolicited.
I suggest speaking with this DM before your next session. If these things are houserules, then accept them. If he doesn't realize he's making mistakes, offer to pipe up with rules corrections when he makes them, and if he decides to go with your input, fine, if he listens to your input and then goes with his own ruling, you need to accept it and go with it.
I had a situation that went like that when our group faced a buch of flameskulls and the wizard wanted to use Mage Hand to pull the skulls down into the range of the melee striker (my character), since a floating skull weighs less than 5 lbs. I told him that strictly speaking, the rules didn't allow for this, but since they don't strictly DISALLOW it either, it was his call. He decided to allow it, and asked for my input as to how it should work. I suggested a INT check by the wizard opposed by a STR check by the flameskull. If the wizard wins, he gets to push the skull down.
I probably would not have allowed this tactic, but I was not the DM.
I've got ADHD, so I tend to get hyperfocused on things I enjoy.
That is the opposite of what that means.
You obviously don't have ADHD, otherwise you wouldn't be making such an ignorant statement. Hyperfocusing is a trick that a lot of ADHD people have developed to compensate for being easily distracted. It's focusing attention on something to the point of obsession, hypnotizing one's self to ignore all other things. It has...pros and cons. Trust me on this.