Balanced Gaming through Rule-Lawyering?

[garyh]

I lean towards the "players should have access to as few books as possible" camp. However, I don't expect everyone to live on just the PHB.

When I played my PsyWar Sunday, I only brought by PHB and PsiHB. I didn't need anything else, I didn't bring it. If I was using a PrC, I'd make sure I'd have the source book with me. That's it. Minimalist, but not overly so.

 

[BenBrown]

In our group, players have access to pretty much everything. We don't look at the monster books during games, but we're also old hands, and can give a rough estimate of what the more common nasties can do off the top of our heads.

If there were a reason (e.g. wild shape) to consult the MM or other bestiaries during the game, we could, and I don't think there'd be howls of protest from the GM. There's enough trust there.

 

[The Sigil]

I allow in-game, at-the-table reference to:

1.) The Player's Handbook
2.) Photocopied pages (photocopying done by me) relevant to the individual PC from other books (e.g., photocopies of the DMG Shadowdancer Prestige Class for the shadow dancer, copies of animals from the MM for the druid, copies of X from book Y for the player using them, and so on)

Players may reference either of those at the table.

Away from the table they can look at whatever they like, but I make it very clear that Rule 0 trumps any quote they pull out of a book. Also, they cannot use a rulebook to dispute a past ruling (see below) - only to tell me, "you missed that one, here's the right rule for future reference." Rules-lawyering can only affect the future, not the past - and I always have veto power (good ol' Rule 0).

I tend to make a "quick common sense ruling" to keep gameplay flowing if I don't know a rule. I look it up between sessions. If I am wrong, my earlier ruling stands - for that event only - and I make it clear to the players that things will be handled "correctly" from that point on. The PCs know coming in that I do this in the interest of speeding gameplay and that I will do the research and reverse myself if necessary. That seems to be a balance they accept.

--The Sigil

 

[Kalendraf]

shouit - that sounds like a whinging bastard, not a rules lawyer - you should have pointed out that CR's and character wealth levels are a guide for the DM, not a hard-and-fast rule.

I would be said rules lawyer! I don't really consider myself to be a rules lawyer or a whiner... You really need to hear both sides of the story, I'd say. The DM in question tossed us into a very difficult adventure when my character was killed. Turns out it was a CR11 monster (probably an EL12 or 13 due to the monster-friendly terrain) while the party was about 6th level. I don't mind that kind of thing when you can run away. But we had no real choice but as a party and had to fight past it, and we had no easy way to do so. It was the DM's first campaign in 3E and he really didn't have a firm grasp on how EL's and stuff were supposed to work. And as a result, my character ended up dying, though in the process it proved the point that things were terribly amiss in the campaign from a challenge perspective.

As for rules lawyering in general, I firmly believe that a campaign is limited by how well it is run, and that includes how well the DM both knows and enforces rules critical to the situation at hand. When a DM makes a minor mistake like forgetting about some obscure ruling, I *usually* just blow it off as a player, but try to let them know outside the session. What irks me the most is when a DM really hoses up and either misses a very key rule in the game session (either to the weal or woe of the party) or if they aren't consistent with a ruling between game sessions. In one of shouit's sessions I brought up a rather minor rules oversight during the session, which I realize wasn't in best interest of the campaign that night.

I've played for some DM's that expect themselves to know every rule inside and out, and I guess that's ingrained in my blood now. Some of the best games I've been involved in as a player and as a DM were that good because the players and the DM took extra effort to learn the rules inside and out. Once that is done, the time spent wondering what was legal went away, leaving so much more time for good ole roleplaying, combat, and the other stuff that you really play the game for.

I fully agree with a lot of the points here - books at the table are up to DM discretion. I for one like having them handy for reference, and it's easy for a non-active player to look up a ruling while the roleplay continues with the other players, etc. The game is so much better when everyone knows and understands the rules, IMHO, and the only way to teach that is to figure them out either during or immediately after the session where the questions come up.

I guess deep-down I want a DM to be perfect (that goes for when I play or when I DM), but I realize that DM's are human too.

 

[Kalendraf]

We consult the rules whenever one of us has some sort of question about an event that occured. It really doesn't affect game flow because you tend to check something during someone elses action.

I myself tend to be a rules lawyer but it comes with the experience of playing for many years. I just can't help myself. The key to being a good lawyer is defending the "law." I bring up rules that hurt the PCs all the time as well as helping us out. "A DM, I believe that monster is immune to piercing weapons, etc."

brogjammej, I feel exactly the same way as you do it appears. I've got 20 years of experience of DnD under my belt and I sometimes just can't help myself either. You're comment about checking during the game is my sentiments exactly.

What's even more funny is that your comment about the "immune to piercing weapons" is the same basic thing that I encounter in shouit's campaign. We were facing skeletons, and as we proceeded to fight them, I mentioned that I was pretty sure they had a damage reduction to edged and piercing weapons. He even quickly looked up the entry in the MM but he somehow managed to overlook the bit about taking 1/2 damage from slashing and piercing. It is is near the bottom, so I guess I can understand it somewhat. Anyways, the fight continued, and it just bothered the living bejeezus out of me. I just knew that ruling was there somewhere. So after fight ended, I popped out my MM in my bag, found the entry and pointed it out. Apparently, shouit and at least one or two of the players felt that I'd stepped out of bounds here. I probably should have waited until after the session to point it out. My take on it was that I was helping the DM learn more about this creature for future reference, but his take and a player or two felt that it was interfering with the roleplaying. At the time I pointed it out, we were basically wrapping up combat (healing wounds, etc), so I didn't see it as necessarily disruptive. In the future, I'll make a point of waiting until after the session to bring up stuff like this again. Other DM's I've played for would chastise me for not pointing it out immediately at the beginning of combat.

The point here is that you need to know and understand your DM and the other players to know what they want. Some groups do things one way, while others do it another way. As long as everyone has fun, then you must be doing it the right way

 

[ForceUser]

Curious to know - how frequently do you refer to the rulebooks in-game? Does your group have a policy around this? Which books, if any, are your players prohibited from consulting? How do you resolve technical fouls? (Two rounds later: "Uh, DM, according to the spell desciption, I believe I should have been entitled to a saving throw...") And how does all of this affect your game?

We relish performing the 3E rules correctly. Most of us play with a personal copy of the PHB at our elbows, and we often refer to it during play to clear up confusion. Those of us who are more knowledgable in the rules often pause the action to explain them to those who aren't. The unspoken standard among my friends is that we are all trying to play as accurately to the rules as possible, so when the DM doesn't know something off the top of his head, we'll look it up. For us, this doesn't detract from the gameplay, but instead enhances it by preserving accuracy and consistency. We love the rules, and we want to play by them as much as possible. There are occasional exceptions where the DM ad libs a scenario to prevent a slowing of the gameplay, but in general, it's not a problem.

At the table during play, our players have access to any rulebook they want to peruse, with the caviat that they'll be adults and not sneak a peek at the Monster Manual entry of the beast we're currently fighting. As high level play waxes, though, we've noticed that the druid needs to reference the Monster Manual frequently for wild-shaping, the spellcasters need to reference the DMG frequently for item crafting, and everyone needs the PHB as well as whatever book their prestige class is detailed in.

 

[Malakye]

I allow the PHB and splat books at the table and if the player is not active at the moment and wants to look up a magic item they would like to purchase/create/hunt for, the DMG.

I agree with some of the comments above about being annoyed by DM's who don't know the rules. I played in a campaign where the DM was new and didn't know the rules very well. Since I was a fellow DM I tried to help him out every once in a while during the game, discreetly as possible. It turned out that he hated that and some of the other players who were also new noticed and didn't like it either. The players who did know the rules liked what I was doing. I think the new players may have thought I was looking down on them and trying to be a "know it all".
What I did in future games was ignore the errors and just play around them. For example, the DM would never make spot/listen checks so I never took skill points in it. Between game sessions when I talked to the DM I would give him advice and he didn't mind it then and told me he really liked what I was doing.

 

[Luddite]

When I DM, I don't mind the players having access to any book they choose to bring. The others in my group DM as well, and we all know how to politely point out any potential mis-intrupetation.

It for my players to have the other books since I can say: "Bob, you took a negitive level, reduce your Attacks and other Checks by one, and look up the rest." I told them enough to keep the action flowing and the can learn the details when it isn't their turn. Then when combat is over, we can figure out how to get rid of the Negitive Level.

As for the MM, my players don't look up something unless I ask them or it is something else (Like stats for Summond Creatures.) If I was playing in a group that would Meta-game with the MM, then I would just change the monsters. "This troll only takes damage from Cold and Sonic attacks"

In the end it depends on the level of trust between the players and the DM.

-The Luddite

 

[Saeviomagy]

From what I can understand, there are basically 2 types of players/dms (depending on the person, it applies equally to either role).

1) The type who care about the rules, and believe the rules are necessary to the game, and believe that it is their duty to learn the rules and correct an incorrect ruling. In the position of the DM, these type of people will readily accept valid rulings from players, provided that it doesn't degenerate into an argument which spoils the night for everyone present.

2) The type who doesn't care about the rules, and believe the rules are secondary to the game. They believe that any mention of the rules breaks down the game, and will tend to react negatively to anyone who attempts to bring up an incorrect ruling.

In general either game can be fun if both groups of people remember civility and grace, and are not out for a fight. Typically, telling someone to shut up when they're pointing out a rule is not conducive to a good gaming experience, nor is going on about an incorrect ruling. Be receptive and listen to what people have to say.

Kalendraf and Shouit - I'd suggest the two of you have a chat and work out what level of rule-adherance you want in a game.

 

[S'mon]

Generally speaking, I expect my players to refer to and use the PHB during games, and help me with PHB rules (eg spell details, or what actions provoke an AoO). I see the PHB as 'their domain'. The DMG & MM ('DM's domain') are off-limits without special permission, eg to check warhorse or familiar stats. Extra player guides (Sword & Fist, Quintessential Fighter etc) may be looked at, but do not count as part of the game rules unless I say so.