I'd like some Opinions please

[Mr. Grimm]

I honestly don't understand why you are bored so often that it's beome an issue. I would avoid rules lawyering in general -- as in never counter the DM unless he asks or mentions he's unsure. Interupting flow when you or or character aren't involved is just annoying. The only way I can see you interupting is if you're looking at notes and give info to the other players that they might not recall or know and it's needed in their decision making. If that's the case, talk to the DM about being the player's "memory" for them while they are busy or aiding him IF he's uncertain of some fact. But otherwise, everything else is subject to DM whim. If you're that bored, bring a book of fiction or you and the other non-playing PCs can discuss other actions that your group may consider taking when the action returns to you.

But in all honesty, if interrupting a game with comments and rules-lawyering while your character isn't even in the mix is more important to you than playing in general, you wouldn't be missed in my group.

 

[Schmoe]

Hatchling, speaking from a DM's point of view, I can understand why he doesn't want you to read background material that your character wouldn't otherwise know. From my perspective, that's pretty close to reading the adventure module. After all, plots are written around and directly affected by background material. If you know the background, you often know the plot. My recommendation would be to seek a compromise. Tell him that you need something to read for the times that you are not involved, but agree to avoid looking at anything that is directly related to the current adventure. That would include, for example, reading up on ghost-whatever halflings after you find out that they are a key foe. I know it's hard to check one's curiosity (at least it is for me!), but I think it's a necessary courtesy.

Also, why in the world are you idle so often? You say that he is a fantastic DM, but I have problems with a DM that ignores any player for extended periods of time. After all, everyone came to play.

 

[Kamard]

Back in 2nd edition, I had memorized every single monster entry from the MM and all four annual manuals, so I can sympathize with your problem. I also know the rules better than anybody else, so when I play, I have to keep my mouth shut so that the lesser beings don't get mad at my stunning intellect.

But seriously, I would just keep my mouth shut if it bothered the GM.

 

[Zappo]

I've got to side with the DM. At my table, reading the adventure, or reading MM entries for creatures that the player knows he's going to fight or is currently fighting is a big no-no. I usually don't even allow reading adventures we've already played, until all the ramifications and things the players originally missed have become apparent - which can take months. I don't care if he claims he can still act IC and not use the meta knowledge.
If I ever caught a player reading the adventure, I'd probably boot him until the adventure is over, or at the very least until the bit he read has passed.

I do allow casual reading of the MM, watching the cool pictures, things like that, and assume that the player will probably not remember all important details when actually facing the monster and whatever random bits of informations he does gain are part of the average adventurer's knowledge.

I also allow reading any rule book, including the DMG, at any time, provided that the player is looking for something relevant to the current situation and that it doesn't interrupt the flow.

 

[Umbran]

Hatchling Dragon, based upon what you've written here (which is admittedly a limted picture) you are over-reacting.

The "no reading game materials at the table" rule is a common one. The majority of Game Masters I know use it as a general policy. Everyone says they won't let out-of-game knowledge into the game. Many people even mean it when they say it. The number of people who actually manage the trick are few and far between. Once you know a thing, you know it. It does enter your thought process, like it or not.

Most DMs prefer even-handedness. They don't like to pick and choose who follows what rules at the table, because it smacks of playing favorites ("No, I'm sorry, Jim, but you can't read that. Hand it to Joe, who I allow to read it."). If any player might be a problem, it makes some sense to make it a general rule.

Now, about that, "...I will not be dictated to..." line. You might want to rethink it.

Gaming is not an anarchy, and you know it. There is a referee who's responsibility is not limited to applying the rules of the game, but also generally to behavior at the table. Traditionally, that referee decides how much out-of-game joking and goofing around are acceptable at the table, whether Frank should put away his Game-Boy and pay attention, and so on. It's the DM's job to get the game to run smoothly, for the benefit of all. To do this he may have to set some rules. This should not be news to you.

So, yes, you will be dictated to, within reasonable limits. You implicitly agreed to a certain amount of this when you joined the group.

 

[Hatchling Dragon]

Ok, lemme try again...

Apparently I'm not explaining things well enough, or others are reading something into my words that I'm just not seeing.

A few points: I wasn't disrupting the game, the DM did that when he kept asking me what I was reading (the FRCS acutally). I wasn't reading any adventure notes, he tends to make things up on his own, and it's frankly no fun if I were to know what's going on. This is in spite of my utter lack of "Sleuthing Skills", subtle to me is a small rock thrown at my head to get my attention

I'm 'rules official' because I asked if they wanted me to, since I had recently read the 3e rules and didn't have any of the 2e stuff cluttering up my memory making me blur the line as it were. They agreed. I did have a problem with interupting (usually after too many Mt Dews, I was hyper then) but that's did, not does have a problem. Far as I know it's solved, the DM's got no problem letting me know if I interupt.

I was bored and inactive becuase my character had no way to know anything was going on at all, and I'm not going to pull some lame excuse outta my ... er... ear, and say something like "I think I have to go potty, I'm going to leave and..." just to get into the action. I was supposedly in a hidden (and sound-proofed) magical-type lab doing repairs on an item we'd found in the Naga's lair (assuming it's really a Naga). In actuality I was in an illusionary root cellar or something, but I didn't know that till far too late, I was gassed unconsious as the Illusion dropped.

Yes I know that rules have to be enforced at the table to 'keep things flowing' and agree totally with that idea. Then again you have'nt seen some of the goofiness at our table, with my contribuition being laughing myself sick at the foolery going on. I was only chatting a bit with others that weren't active (off doing something else, 'on the way' to the fight, that sorta thing). I don't chat at people that are actually 'active', unless it's to mabye point out (via note or whisper) somethign they may have missed or missunderstood under the 3e Rules. And I try to keep that to a minimum too, cutting it off if that person 'gets thrust back into the spotlight' as it were.

And we've met a number of sessions now, yet these rules are just now creeping up. Espeically that "I'm not going to allow all spells, ask me first." rule. I think the only non-PHB spell I even have was at the near-insistnce of the DM. A spell I'll add that I have yet to use, and doubt I'll ever use. Not a huge deal as I couldn't think of anything else to pick then.

I just wish I knew why everyone's repling to things that didn't happen, or that I'd said were already resolved (ie: my impulsiveness/interupting). I'm sorry about going on about a relatively simple matter, but I truely hate being missinterpreted, especially when I tried to make myself totally clear from the start.

My biggest issue isn't the rules per-se, those are all pretty normal and what I'd sorta expected. It's that they're not the rule we started the campain with, he seems to be changing his mind as he goes, and not even that is totally consistant. He claims DM'ing experience, and his Rat Bastard'ish level of deviousness seems to support that, but his changing the ground rules is another matter.

Well, done it again, rambled on some more. I just can't leave something this badly missunderstood.

Hatchling Dragon

 

[Oogar]

Dialog with him, it is the only solution that might make both of you okay about it. I try to be honest with my group, "Most of the WoTC stuff is okay, but check with me first". Saying in the beginning "Go for it," just means that later you have to worry about what they put out. Power inflation is common in all games that are "living".

I suppose that might not be an answer. It the group I was playing in the DM was working under a lot of stress. He started to make choices that I did not feel comfortable with. I am now DMing rather then him. That is one situation that can come to pass. I love the group too much to leave it. Do you love the group?

Sorry, a little tipsy at the moment. Logic bad. Buffy tonight. "Please be good." "I miss Joss."

Er, uh. Good luck. *goes to refill his glass*