Pathfinder 1E Rules Rules Rules! >:(

[DaveMage]

I make it clear up front what my style is and what kind of game I run.

Same here. Establishing ground rules before play is key, IMO.

 

[S'mon]

You're entitled to house rule how drawing & dropping shields, weapons etc works. Just make sure the players understand the new rule. If a player refuses to accept this, you may need to ask them to leave.

Giving monsters any hit point total you like within the dice-generatable range is not a house rule. You don't have to use the listed average hit points! Giving more than max-possible hp would be a house rule in 3e/PF and I'd probably tell the players if I were going to do that without altering the CR/level. But you can always just give the monster more levels/hit dice.

From your description if I were you I would probably boot this player. It's not good to GM for people who make the game unfun for you. But you can try telling him NO MORE ARGUMENTS first, then boot him if he refuses to accept that.

 

[jasper]

.. 1.Also, you may want to forbid this player (and the other players, if it is a problem) from using their phones or computers at the game table)....
2..If a player has a rules issue, give them a small amount of time (two to five minutes) to articulate that issue, then make a ruling and carry on with the game. If the player continues to act out, eject him from the game.

I agree with statement 2 Mike. But number 1 is unenforceable. It can lead to wedgies if you are smaller than the other group members. Or you can't tell someone they can't access their own toys.

 

[ggeilman]

Rules lawyers, don't need them at the table. End of story.

 

[the Jester]

Two things. I would suggest two things.

First is the phrase, "I have made my ruling. If you'd like to discuss it later, we can, but for now, we move on."

This phrase MUST BE accompanied by actually moving on and refusing to re-engage the discussion until after the session is over.

The first, and far more important IMHO, is giving a clear separation between player material and dm material. In my campaign, except under the most unusual circumstances, the pcs are absolutely forbidden to look at a monster's stats. You stay out of the Monster Manual, that's dm territory! In fact, I consider a player looking up a monster during game time to be flat-out cheating. I would suggest a more hardcore, old-skool style approach to this: he can look up the stats out of game as much as he wants, but during playtime- no.

 

[innerdude]

Player = Gone. Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (or euros, or pounds, whatever ).

This is the worst possible syndrome for a gaming group --- feeling like we need to tolerate bad behavior just because someone has shown a "commitment" to the group. I appreciate everyone else's approach of "gentle remonstration," but I simply will not tolerate this kind of behavior, period.

The worst thing you can do is waste additional energy and stress figuring out the best way to "handle the situation."

Go to the player and respectfully but firmly say, "You have exactly one more chance to prove you're going to be considerate of the group's fun and my goals for the campaign. The next time your actions disrupt a session, I will ask you to no longer participate in the group."

One of the responsibilities of being a GM is taking an active role in managing the personality dynamics of your group. If you do not want this responsibility, step down as GM, or at the very least approach the other players and ask them to participate in setting the tone for the group. But ultimately the responsibility is yours.

 

[N'raac]

Player = Gone. Do not pass go, do not collect $200 (or euros, or pounds, whatever ).

This is the worst possible syndrome for a gaming group --- feeling like we need to tolerate bad behavior just because someone has shown a "commitment" to the group. I appreciate everyone else's approach of "gentle remonstration," but I simply will not tolerate this kind of behavior, period.

The worst thing you can do is waste additional energy and stress figuring out the best way to "handle the situation."

So far, we're on the same page.

Go to the player and respectfully but firmly say, "You have exactly one more chance to prove you're going to be considerate of the group's fun and my goals for the campaign. The next time your actions disrupt a session, I will ask you to no longer participate in the group."

One of the responsibilities of being a GM is taking an active role in managing the personality dynamics of your group. If you do not want this responsibility, step down as GM, or at the very least approach the other players and ask them to participate in setting the tone for the group. But ultimately the responsibility is yours.

Here, we depart. I agree with the solution, but I do not agree it is the GM's sole responsibility. This is a group activity, and it is for the group to decide who will, and won't play. If all of the other players were frustrated with this guy, and the GM wasn't, I would still expect the GM to work with the expectations of the group. If the group is OK with this guy, but the GM isn't, then I dont see the GM kicking him out as the answer (maybe the GM is incompatible with the group, but that's another story).

Here, my expectation is that the players back up the GM, if they agree this is a problem (I hope they would, but I'm not sure that has been inicated one way or the other) or provide the opposing view if they disagree. My bias is to put the issue on the table. If I, as GM, am unhappy with this behaviour, I'll say so. If the players agree, they should say so, not sit quietly and expect the GM to deal with it. That quiet sitting is just as easily interpreted as "I don't have a problem with Player X" as "I agree with the GM". The group, not the GM alone, is responsible for setting and maintaining the social contract.

 

[Rakusia]

im actually okay with rules lawyers. as a primary dm when i play i fail to stop rules lawyering. however the guy that dms when i play doesnt know the rules so he has actually requested me and other players assist him when its something he doesnt know. a rules lawyer can be a good addition. they will often know obscure rules and at the very least know how to play their character well. as in real life lawyers rules lawyers come in very many configurations. i act as a mitigater ill explain the rules and how what was done differed. then the dm gets his final say. what your guy is doing is more like a trial lawyer in closing arguments. disruptive and only able to see his side. its important to remember if hes a lawyer putting up the relevent laws then your the judge and jury taking what he says and passing the judgement. its not wrong for a player to want the rules followed. in a world where the laws of the universe are literally written down, i get that but those laws are for dm interpretation. hp thats an average. the shield thing thats no biggie(in my game if youve taken two weapons fighting feat you take no penalty. if youve trained your life to fight with both hands there should be no reason either hand is worse than the other) but also if you change a universal law, write it down distribute it to your players. being open and up front and once more giving the player a universal crib sheet could go a long way. if not let him know you will tolerate no arguments in game.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

A player looking up monster stats at the table is grounds for execution.

The rest of it sounds like a player who doesn't understand that he and the DM are trying to play different games.

I don't know how old or mature you or this player are, but I've found that you often can talk to a player about play styles, and for a while they'll try to adapt. Some make the shift successfully, the others start to lose interest and eventually leave the game. Both are acceptable outcome.

 

[Rakusia]

A player looking up monster stats at the table is grounds for execution.

The rest of it sounds like a player who doesn't understand that he and the DM are trying to play different games.

I don't know how old or mature you or this player are, but I've found that you often can talk to a player about play styles, and for a while they'll try to adapt. Some make the shift successfully, the others start to lose interest and eventually leave the game. Both are acceptable outcome.

important part bolded. i don't understand this philosophy. why make someone change their fun? because he doesn't care about his character he doesnt deserve a good game?

there are two issues here. his play style, and his arguing/looking up monster stats. his play style isn't a problem. if you don't agree with it that's okay but looking at it mathematically isn't a reason to make him leave the group. just look at the second gamers movie. if he contributes to the game and his play style doesn't cause problems why try to make him change? at any table there should be room for many play styles

his arguing and stat look ups are a different monster altogether