Pathfinder 1E As a player, how do you argue your rules interpretation 1) successfully and 2) without being obnoxious?

[James Gasik]

At some point, the DM has to just make a ruling and move on. I know players can be passionate about their interpretations, and the DM is usually conservative about rulings (DM's hate surprises, especially with player power!), but you can always review it later if new information comes to light.

Just make it clear, a ruling is not a precedent. This isn't a court of law!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have used a very simple process that has worked for a very long time.

If a player wants to argue regarding a rules interpretation during the game, then:

A. They can raise the point briefly and succinctly, once. I will hear what they say and make the ruling. Absent a very few situations (like I forgot about something in the game, or something on the character sheet), this will be unsuccessful.

B. Any further discussion will be held outside of the game. Either after the game, by email between sessions, or before the next game.

 

[payn]

I have used a very simple process that has worked for a very long time.

If a player wants to argue regarding a rules interpretation during the game, then:

A. They can raise the point briefly and succinctly, once. I will hear what they say and make the ruling. Absent a very few situations (like I forgot about something in the game, or something on the character sheet), this will be unsuccessful.

B. Any further discussion will be held outside of the game. Either after the game, by email between sessions, or before the next game.

Hmm, that's more reasonable than my table. We kick the table over, toss a knife into the floor between us, and work it out from there.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm...not sure players should be highly involved in "rules interpretation," that's pretty clearly the GM's job.

If you have an issue with the GM's interpretation of rules, about the only way to can be successful (and avoid being obnoxious about it) would be to wait until a break and then talk to the GM about it. Because interrupting the game to argue about rules is always obnoxious, and it's rarely successful besides.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hmm, that's more reasonable than my table. We kick the table over, toss a knife into the floor between us, and work it out from there.

Well, yeah! That's my middle name.

Snarf "Reasonable" Zagyg.

C'mon ... when people are like, "I need a calm and reasonable opinion about the things that matter most in life, like the viability of bards, and the utility of dead-eyed soulless elves," they know to come Ol' Reasonable.

 

[James Gasik]

Well the GM can be wrong. They can be too conservative, especially if something surprises them (it's my experience that GM's really, really, REALLY hate surprises). And no, you shouldn't interrupt the flow of play, but if it could result in player death, well, can you really wait?

I don't think anyone wants to wait an hour so the DM can retcon an event which shouldn't have happened. I actually had this happen at an AL table, we were running the Curse of Strahd tie-in and I was playing a Yuan-Ti. Volo's was still new, so people hadn't really noticed the Yuan-Ti's benefits yet (they were still lighting forums on fire about "stat penalties in my 5e!? Preposterous!").

So we have to fight, I don't know, I want to say Ghasts. Either way, they had an aura that poisoned you. I was trying to save an ally, and I decided, ok, it's worth me using up spell slots, I'll attack and Smite a Ghast.

So I roll, hit the AC, say "I do xx damage" and the DM stops and says. "You have to roll with disadvantage." Now he didn't tell me why, so I was like, ok. I missed, and everyone was like, you should have waited to know you hit before you used Smite.

I simply responded, "I don't know why I had disadvantage."

The DM replied "you have the poisoned condition".

"I'm immune to that", says I.

"No, you're immune to disease and poison damage, now let me finish this encounter."

We lose a player and I ask if I can bring something up to the DM. He's like, ok sure.

I show him that I'm immune to the poisoned condition, and his response was. "Wait, what? I thought you were immune to poison damage!"

After some conversing with the other DM's, he ruled that the dead player "miraculously survived", which led to suspicions that they might be undead, revived by the Dark Powers!

 

[billd91]

I'm...not sure players should be highly involved in "rules interpretation," that's pretty clearly the GM's job.

If you have an issue with the GM's interpretation of rules, about the only way to can be successful (and avoid being obnoxious about it) would be to wait until a break and then talk to the GM about it. Because interrupting the game to argue about rules is always obnoxious, and it's rarely successful besides.

It's the GM's job to issue a ruling, but I don't think rule interpretations are just the GM's job. A player should advocate for themself if they think their interpretation is correct. After all, it affects how they expect things to play out in the game.

As far as debating these, whether or not to interrupt a game for it depends on how critical the interpretation is to the situation at hand. If it's a minor point and doesn't affect survival, they should let it pass and discuss later. If it does affect survival, that's a good time to call a break and review it while other, non-interested players grab a snack or hit the restroom.

 

[James Gasik]

I had a thought that I might use for my next game. I'll give my players an index card that's yellow on one side, and red on the other, and if they see a rules infraction, I'll tell them to throw a flag on the play. Yellow means it's not a big deal, get to it later.

Red means "uh, hold up, this is a big deal!"

 

[Dragonsbane]

As a DM, I listen if a player knows a rule and corrects me. That said, it rarely happens. I am usually explaining rules, even to my vet players.

After the first sentence, if I want to move on, I make a ruling and we move on! Perhaps we clarify it later, but no retconning.

Of course, entitled players who want to argue don't last long at my table with the above ruling. I also inform players that they might have pointed out something that needs a house rule, which might be added... right then.

 

[Undead]

If you know in advance you will be pulling a stunt once your build comes online in 3 levels, talk to them about it now and outside the game when there is no rush you can both google faqs and stuff without holding everyone else hostage with immersion breaking metagame arguments.

Not being taken by surprise by some cheesy stuff you were planning for months will make your dm less angry, and being told upfront that your build isn't viable before you spend months anticipating it will make you less angry.