Was I a jerk?

[RolandOfGilead]

Ok guys, I just wanna run the situation by you and see if you think I was being obnoxious.

Last night, our DM ran several scenarios by us, and at the end of the scenario, called me on my behavior. without further ado:

We faced a Huge undead 4 legged beast. we are "Invisible to undead".. but it knows something is in the area. (its intelligent). it walks toward us, and our halfling uses his turn to kind of step between the party and the beasty hoping to give us time to get through a gate which the creature guards.

the creature moves into his square because it cannot see him, and our DM says it automatically is going to "hit" the halfling. I say "It can't move into his square even if it cant see him, without doing an overrun (which would move him and not cause damage). Even if you said "its not doing an overrun, its stomping the square" the halfling is going to be afforded the chance to dodge by his AC and his miss chance. He basicly told me quiet, I know the rules. then stepped on our halfling. "But the halfling is 3 sizes smaller than the huge creature, it can even share its space and not get..."


Later in the game, a Monster riding a nightmare was casting spells. I simply said "hey, concentration check!" and he said "nope, she doesnt need to make one." Then I brought out the old "even if its a spell like ability, it needs to make a check..." to which he said "Nope, not her. Trust me, I know the rules. Remember you're not playing with new people."... even if she has 20 ranks in ride, doesnt she have to make a check and fail only on a 1 on the die?
I let it go at that because of his tone...

Lastly, he tried the huge beast thing again.
My monk had just jumpkicked his flying huge nightmare (cashemer or whatever) and landed below the nightmare and to the front. He said the nightmare was just going to land on me, a 2-16 ton creature falling 30 feet, no need to roll a hit, its in my space right? (see the above ruling on a huge creature and a halfling...) no save, no roll, just loads of damage. this time, I wouldnt sit still for it, I told him no way was that how the rule worked, and pulled out savage species which has a feat called "Crush" which WOULD suit the situation he wanted. On this, he relented, but at the end of the came, told me he didnt want me behaving like that...
so was I a jerk? or just pleading my case? And reminding the DM of checks his NPC's have to make just like us PC's?

 

[the Jester]

Although it sounds like the dm was making bad calls, it also sounds like you were being a rules lawyer. Hard to say, just based on your description, and as always there are many sides to the story.

 

[IronWolf]

There are a few sides to every story, and from your description, perhaps the DM was making some bad calls.

BUT.... a lot depends on tone of voice when asking the questions. It almost sounds like you may have been putting the DM on the defensive with some of the questions. (ex. "hey, concentration check!"). A nice polite "Should she have to make a concentration check?" may have gone much further than blurting out "Hey, concentration check!".

A pleasant attitude will get you much further than trying to put the DM on the defensive (regardless of who knows the rules better). Again, I can only go by what was described here, and I have no way of knowing what the actual tone of voice or situation was from a message board post.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

I understand what you mean, but I dont think its rules lawyering to make a stand in the game on a rule that would otherwise mean....

"Huge creature begins its move adjacent to you. it has 60' of movement. make your AOO. Done? good. It moves through your space stomping you with no role no save for x damage. Guess what? its got more movement, so it turns around stomps you again for x damage. and again. Well it' 60' of move is used. Hmm. So is your AOO. It does a double move and does the watusi on your body. Three more stomps for 3x damage."

I understand thats a ridiculous comment, but this is what TRAMPLE is for and other such special feats and abilities.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

Tone?

About the halfing being overrun, I was just as you say.. "shouldnt it have to make an overrun to move into his space? and therefore push him out of the space in order to occupy it?"

about the nightmare it was "Aha! Gotya! I bet you forgot...." A smirky good humoured gotya.

and the last was a little more contentious (it was my monk!)

 

[IronWolf]

About the halfing being overrun, I was just as you say.. "shouldnt it have to make an overrun to move into his space? and therefore push him out of the space in order to occupy it?"

Well, given that... If I was the DM I would have certainly taken a short amount of time to listen to your case before making a final judgement. (i.e. look up the rule to re-affirm, listen to your case). I try to keep these type of things to a minimum in a game, but where it could mean the difference between living and dying I allow a bit more time.

Note - although I try to limit rules discussion during the game I am quite happy to address rule questions or clear things up after the game or during off-time before the next session. If I errored during the previous weeks game I announce how a similiar situation would be handled from there on out so everyone is on the same page.

about the nightmare it was "Aha! Gotya! I bet you forgot...." A smirky good humoured gotya.

Doesn't sound too bad in and of itself. Maybe the DM was having a rough night?

and the last was a little more contentious (it was my monk!)

<grin> Can't blame you too much there!

 

[Corlon]

From your story it sounds like:
You were bothering him about the rules too much, he had a bad day, or he likes to win too much .

Unless he usually makes split second rules decisions like that.

I'd say just let it go (for the first two at least) and get annoyed after the session.

Especially in the second one, sometimes I put in some random rule for certain characters or creatures to make them less vanilla and surprise the characters (I don't know if he was doing this or not, but if the DM says that's the way it is on things like that I'd just let it go).

On the third one...you should've got mad. That's like a DM saying "you're bothering me, rocks fall, everybody dies."

I generally don't like those "crushing people with random heavy things" tactics, but in situations like that he'd HAVE to put in some sort of way to escape (reflex save, attack role, whatever).

It is always a group by group thing though.

 

[Victim]

I don't know about being a jerk, but you're wrong about the skill checks. A natural one is only a problem for attacks and saves, not skill checks. A sufficiently skilled caster will auto-succeed on a casting defensively in a hurricane while riding a dinosaur. I don't know about you, but someone who is attempting to call me on rules he doesn't know himself makes me more than a little peeved, and more unlikely to dismiss his possibly correct arguments out of hand.

But I'd probably call BS on automatic hits for stomping squares and the like too. But there's probably a more tactful way to get your point across. I don't know it's a good idea or not, but I usually try to explain why the rule works. Ie, you don't want to allow big creatures to squish square causing automatic hits for several reasons. First of all, big creatures already get extra BaB and STR from their size (kind of, big creatures generally have more HD standard), so that tactic is already taken into account for their attack bonuses. Also, damage based on facing and mass gives many creatures a super huge attack that isn't factored into their CR or other abilities. You'd think at least one creature entry would reference jumping or falling into PCs to hit a whole group for 70d6 damage if they could do that. Finally, we PCs can use summoned monsters, polymorphs, or other size change effects to duplicate these high damage auto-hit attacks, which won't really be fun or good for the game.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

It's just a personal thing with me, but the tone and attitude when someone asks me a question or brings up a point goes a long way with me. I don't mind a rules lawyer in my game (I don't have the rules memorized and have no fargin' intention of ever doing so. I play by "flavor" as much as I play by the rules), but if a player pulls attitude with me instead of addressing me in a friendly fashion, I'm much less inclined to acquiesce on the point in question. I have a couple of very simple rules where my gaming is concerned:

1) I'm always right unless you can prove me wrong, and
2) My house, my rules. Once you cross my threshold, you enter a benign dictatorship, where if you don't like the way I do something you can just go home.

I'll always do my best to be fair and give someone a voice, but I expect others to treat me with the same respect I offer them. If they broach this boundary, the nice guy stops here.

 

[Liquidsabre]

The DM obviously feels threatened by your rules knowledge (rather than mining you as a rules resource as a good DM should) and has gotten overly defensive to your poking and prodding in-game. Continuing to call out rules to a DM who refuses to listen is a waste of time that serves only to disrupt the game.

It is also highly inappropriate to call your actions rules lawyering as any roleplayer worth their salt knows that true rules lawyering involves the bending of rules interpretations in an effort to take advantage of other's lack of knowledge and to gain advantages for their character. Simply knowing the rules and able to access them relatively easily is NOT rules lawyering but being a responsible player to know the game system in which you play, just as it is also the DM's responsibility to be familiar with the game system to a manageable degree.

First, when faced with a DM with inaudequate rules knowledge coupled with an unwillingness to acknowledge their own lack of rules mastery, one must first come to the realization of this truth. Such a DM will ignore the existence of rules in favor of trying to keep the game going, this sort of sloppiness can and will inevitably result in unfair rulings on both the sides of the players and likely foes as well. When playing under such a DM I try to point out some of the rules as a useful tool for the DM to decide to make use of them or not. Like it or not it IS the DM's preogative to decide which rules to use or not and how to make use of them!

One should never argue against rulings by the DM, however it doesn't sound like your DM is making 'rulings' at all but instead arguing that he knows the rules stated and continuing on with the game in a manner inconsistent with said rules. This is a DM in denial and no amount of arguing with them will bring about a desirable result. One must proceed from this point on cautiously because as a player once the DM has lost your trust you may begin questioning even relatively mundane rulings by said DM, whether such rulings are correct or not.

Later in the game, a Monster riding a nightmare was casting spells. I simply said "hey, concentration check!" and he said "nope, she doesnt need to make one." Then I brought out the old "even if its a spell like ability, it needs to make a check..." to which he said "Nope, not her. Trust me, I know the rules. Remember you're not playing with new people."... even if she has 20 ranks in ride, doesnt she have to make a check and fail only on a 1 on the die? I let it go at that because of his tone...

This here is a prime example of what I'm referring to. Above may very well have been a correct use of the rules by your DM though we can't be sure (don't know what the caster's Concc check is). Skill checks don't auto fail on 1's and don't auto succeed on 20's as attacks and saves do. That is, unless your group plays with houserules to this effect. You apparently weren't awar of this rule and likely the DM was in the right here, nonetheless you tried to call the DM on the ruling. This will cause your DM's behavior to grow worse as the DM knows the ruling is correct and will feel justified in upholding later potentially unfair application of the rules.

Lastly, he tried the huge beast thing again.
My monk had just jumpkicked his flying huge nightmare (cashemer or whatever) and landed below the nightmare and to the front. He said the nightmare was just going to land on me, a 2-16 ton creature falling 30 feet, no need to roll a hit, its in my space right? (see the above ruling on a huge creature and a halfling...) no save, no roll, just loads of damage. this time, I wouldnt sit still for it, I told him no way was that how the rule worked, and pulled out savage species which has a feat called "Crush" which WOULD suit the situation he wanted. On this, he relented, but at the end of the came, told me he didnt want me behaving like that...so was I a jerk? or just pleading my case? And reminding the DM of checks his NPC's have to make just like us PC's?

By persisting in your behavior you were being disruptive and yes, a bit of a jerk. This doesn't mean you weren't unduly provoked by the actions of an unfair and unyielding DM. By acting in the way that you did you will only worsen the situation however.

You must talk to your DM immediately out-of-game and discuss this problem. Apologize profusely first for your disruptive and unruly behavior and do not try to defend it, that is the first step. Second step, describe to the DM how game-play made you feel. State that you felt betrayed and like you were being taken advantage of by what appeared to you as unfair use of the rules against the group's characters. If the DM goes on to apologize for their own misuse of the rules against the players and makes an honest effort to discover the proper rules-use for future game play, then you may be alright. If not, either next discuss this with your fellow players and find out if they feel the same as you do. If the other players agree and the situation persists, depose your DM as gently as possible. Otherwise begin looking for a more worthy group to share game play with.

That's all you can do. The rest is left up to your DM really, but you must first refrain from being a disruptive player as this will only cause your credibility within the group to diminish and thus weaken you influence in resolving the matter.

Best of luck, and here's to hoping the DM steps up! If not, chock up another one to the fabled halls of poor DMing.