Mista Collins said:
What we have here is a classic case of a roll-player vs. a role-player. A roll-player is more interested in the rules and the rolling of the dice than actually creating a character with a personality.
Umm, I take exception to this. (Though, not offense. No worries there.)
I would have to say that I am the Rules Lawyer for the group I play in. I am also the GM for the group I run. So, perhaps my situation is just a little different. But, I insist on putting together character's with personality and background. It is a lot of the fun for me when I am not playing to imagine where my character might go in terms of development. Understanding the rules like I do also allows me to plan ahead for contingencies, to envision ways that the group can overcome obstacles that will be placed in our way, to figure out what bars he will hit next time he is in town, all sorts of things. I am a total gaming geek!
To do all that and expect to pull it off, I need to know the rules. I need to understand the complexities of balance between the classes. I need to understand the synergies that I can derive when I flank an opponent with the monk, or the druid, or the ranger (But not the Mage! What are you doing in melee???). I enjoy looking at the battlemap and realizing that the DM just placed a creature with reach within 10 feet of one of the PC's. A 5-foot adjust, that doesn't drawn an AOO, and allows a full attack action is a wonderful way to start the round. Even when the DM thinks that a 5-foot adjust does draw an AOO, I can disagree and cite the references. (Though, if I had realized the DM didn't do that intentionally, I probably would have pointed it out. I sometimes play my NPC's in a less than intelligent manner because the critter isn't that smart. When the player's figure that out, they will try to exploit the creatures lower intelligence.) I will patiently explain to the spellcasters how to figure out the DC for their spells. I do it every week, but I don't mind. Sooner or later, they will remember.
I spend a lot of time looking over the rules. I spend more time developing character. I don't mind having to correct the other players. And I will do so, even if it is disadvantageous to us! Why? Because I will correct the DM when he is wrong as well. Am I showing off my "superior knowledge"? Perhaps. But I just want to have a good clean game. More importantly, I want to make sure everyone has the basics down. If they play in another game, I want them to hold their own and enjoy the game.
Now, your situation doesn't sound quite the same. Arbitrarily telling you that your spell duration had run out is ... silly. If I have a question/concern on when the durations of any of the groups spells might run out, I will do a quick sanity check with the DM to see how much time has passed. Then, if I have to, I will help the other players figure out if their spells have expired, how long they will last, etc.
I also have a good memory and have recited back entire encounters to refresh everyone's memory. So, the ability/inability to convey facts correctly is not a Rules Lawyer trait.
I try not to be obnoxious about my Rules Lawyering. I just figure that not everyone has the same drive to read the PHB and the DMG all the way through. They may have other things going on in their lives (They are all close friends, and often they do.), they may be having an off night, they probably don't "practice" the rules as much since I run a campaign on another night. I have taken that time, so why not lend an hand when I can?
