[Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

One of my players does this, and it's beginning to drive me seriously nuts. I believe the DM should NOT be required to explain every "unusual" occurrence in the game. If you have difficulty with the rules, then having a "ruleschecker" is good, if they're circumspect about it. If you understand the rules, however, having someone repeatedly and verbally dissecting the NPC's actions into their component rules becomes unbelievably annoying, particularly when whatever conclusion the player arrives at is flawed.

It's not a challenge to authority, in my case, it's a request for understanding. The unstated contract between DM and player is that, for the most part, we're playing with the same rules, above board. If the players sees something that doesn't mesh with the rules, he might wonder why. If it were on every rules call, then that might be an issue, I suppose. We use virtually no house rules, though, so that might be why I don't have as much of a problem with it. Your problems sounds more like he does it constantly, which would derail any game.

The other issue is that following all the available rules, spells and options is much easier for the player than the DM. I understand the rules, but with 6 players with 20th level characters, their cohorts, companions, mounts and familiars and all associated spells, items and effects....that's a lot to keep track of, IMHO. If I forget that someone is flanked in the midst of a combat with 48-150 combatants (and yes, I have had such combats, check my story hour), I don't mind being reminded.

 

[Nellisir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

It's not a challenge to authority, in my case, it's a request for understanding. The unstated contract between DM and player is that, for the most part, we're playing with the same rules, above board. If the players sees something that doesn't mesh with the rules, he might wonder why. Your problems sounds more like he does it constantly, which would derail any game.

The other issue is that following all the available rules, spells and options is much easier for the player than the DM. I understand the rules, but with 6 players with 20th level characters, their cohorts, companions, mounts and familiars and all associated spells, items and effects....that's a lot to keep track of, IMHO. If I forget that someone is flanked in the midst of a combat with 48-150 combatants (and yes, I have had such combats, check my story hour), I don't mind being reminded.

I don't mind a request for understanding, provided it occurs either in a "in character" manner, or after the game. The problem is player X trys to get everything broken down into rules during the game. If a character takes a full round action and casts a spell, it breaks my flow to have to explain exactly how it happened, and it (IMO) removes some of the mystery. I usually point out several different possibilities (3.0 haste, quickened spell, quickened spell-like ability, triggering a hung or contingent spell...) and try and move on.

Yeah, he does it alot.

I'd slacked off alot on keeping people in line, and the last few games I've begun to crack the whip alot more frequently on ooc chatter and loud rules speculation. It's beginning to help.

I should also point out, I don't mind being reminded in a timely manner. Being reminded in a untimely manner is a different matter.

Cheers
Nell.
Not quite as rant-minded as it might seem.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

For example, from my game:

Me (DM): "The creature attacks three times, and then casts horrid wilting."

Player: "Is it hasted? That was a full attack action and a spell."

Me (DM): "It has the quicken spell like ability feat."

Player: "Oh. Cool. And OUCH."

See, this is just bad (not VERY bad, just sorta bad) DMing. This whole thing could have been avoided if the first line had been changed to:

Me (DM): The creature attacks three times, and then, with a single brief gesture and word, blasts you with what must be a quickened horrid wilting.

Honestly. A DM who fusses over this is too sensitive.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

See, this is just bad (not VERY bad, just sorta bad) DMing. This whole thing could have been avoided if the first line had been changed to:

Thanks for that ad hominem attack.

In point of fact, the actual exchange was quite different, with flavor text and a few other details not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Re: Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

See, this is just bad (not VERY bad, just sorta bad) DMing. This whole thing could have been avoided if the first line had been changed to:

Me (DM): The creature attacks three times, and then, with a single brief gesture and word, blasts you with what must be a quickened horrid wilting.

Honestly. A DM who fusses over this is too sensitive.

With all respect, I disagree entirely. Not only is it not the DM's job to explain how monsters and NPCs are performing every task in "rules-speak," it damages both the setting of the scene and the suspension of disbelief. In fact, I think the truly good DMs would, if anything, go the other direction, and not use the name "horrid wilting" at all unless the victim was a high-level spellcaster who'd be likely to recognize it.

"The beast lashes at you with both claws, grazing your shoulder and raking you painfully across the chest. Even as you're recovering from the blow, it lunges forward, its jaws clacking shut in front of your face, so close you can feel its breath.

"Then, with a single gesture and a muttered word, it seems to send a wave of pain through your body. You feel weak, thirsty, and in absolute agony. Give me a Fortitude save."

If, out of character, you wind up needing to explain what happened, that's one thing. But in the middle of setting a scene, and describing things as characters see them, I think it's vital to avoid rules speak and game terms as much as possible.

 

[Voadam]

Re: Re: Re: [Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

See, this is just bad (not VERY bad, just sorta bad) DMing. This whole thing could have been avoided if the first line had been changed to:

Me (DM): The creature attacks three times, and then, with a single brief gesture and word, blasts you with what must be a quickened horrid wilting.

I disagree.

When I DM I shoot for description when everybody is familiar with the game and I would have said "it attacks three times and quickly casts a spell." perhaps getting more descriptive dependin upon the flow of the story at the time.

Or if everyone is new to the game and we are getting used to the rules I might say "it makes a full attack action attacking three times and then as a free action uses a quickened spell.

I never make inferences for the characters "blasts you with what must be a quickened horrid wilting." As a PC I resent being told what I think or feel unless it is a game effect (after missing the save you feel irrationally angry) and so I don't do it to my pcs.

 

[Hackenslash]

After thinking about my recent games, I began wondering if I wasn't one of those always-dreaded "rules-lawyers". When does "following the rules" go to far? Does reminding the DM that a rule doesn't work exactly the way it's being used for/by another PC count as rule-lawyering? Or is it ok to bring it up, as long as you accept it when the DM says "It's a house rule"?

I have a (admittedly bad) habit of mentioning it when I see rules being used "wrong" (differently then in the book). If the DM says that it is a house rule and I think it is fair, I usually drop it... but if I do not consider it fair, I will bring it up to the DM that I do not beleive that it is fair, and why I do not think so.

Is this too far? I can provide examples, if requested....

To answer your question moderately you would probably be classed as a rules lawyer but depending on how you interject and if you bring up these rules questions during play then you might only be a "rules advocate"...hehehe...which are no where near as bad. All joking apart, DM'ing can be very challenging and it is difficult to remember all the rules and even harder to interpret them correctly so that it is fair to all concerned. So the way I have ran my own campaigns is that from the begining I have made it clear that any rule can be questioned and even argued about after the gaming session or before the gaming session but not during the gaming session as this causes delays and spoils the flow of play. Now regarding the term rules lawyer, I would define this as a person who spends a lot of time studying the rules and then argueing their own interpretation of them when that may not be the correct interpretation in the first place, and 9 times out of 10 they are not willing to listen to other peoples points of view over the rule in question. Also they may bring up rules from the book that have no bearing on the scenario and are just tring to over complicate the situation. So that's my 2 cents on Rules Lawyers. Not exactly the most popular player a DM wants but they can have their uses....Cheers All !!

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Hmm... ok, thanks for the advice, everyone who gave some. I think that I am going to attempt to gauge my annoyance factor on the other players and DM.

At least one person asked for examples, so here goes (I can't recall the exact words used, and thus am not going to attempt to re-create the conversation).

Maybe this isn't the best example, but here goes...

We were playing an high-level 3.0 game at this point. The paladin has a young silver dragon holy mount (with the leadership feat and optional rules found in Defenders of the Faith). We are having a battle in rocky/mountian terrain vs giants. The dragon & paladin fly down to hover between between an outcropping of rock and a large tree to guard him from the other giants while attacking the one in front of him. (BTW, we are using minis and a battle-mat.) From the placing of the figures on the mat, I note (out loud) that he really couldn't do that, because the outcropping of rock and the tree are in the way of his wings. He wouldn't be able to hover there.

Slight discussion ensures. It is decreed by DM that he can indeed hover there. No answer is presented to my point that he couldn't hover someplace where he could not utilize his full wingspan.

After the game, I mention to DM that I do not believe that the dragon should be able to hover someplace where he couldn't use his full wingspan, as dragons fly, they don't levitate. After longer discussion, still nothing is resolved on the matter.

 

[Nellisir]

Slight discussion ensures. It is decreed by DM that he can indeed hover there. No answer is presented to my point that he couldn't hover someplace where he could not utilize his full wingspan.

Sad to say, that sounds rules lawyerish to me. Not initially, mind you, but your later tone..."No answer is presented to my point...".

Right there is where the red flags should go up. The fact that the DM said there's enough room should be good enough. He may be imagining a different type of tree. Maybe his dragons can maintain lift with less than a full wingspan. Maybe his dragons generate a portion of lift via a magical stone in their foreheads, one that disintegrates when they die. Doesn't matter. When you decide you know better than the DM, then it's time to either learn silence, or become the DM yourself, because neither the other players nor the DM will appreciate ongoing undercutting of the DM's judgement.

Cheers
Nell.

Who reckons dragons fly to the moon to eat cheese.

 

[Norfleet]

You're probably somewhat lawyery.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Coming from a background in wargaming, I can definitely understand an interest in knowing that everything is playing by the same rules: If something doesn't appear to stick to the rules, I want to know whether this is supposed to indicate that the rules have been changed, and that therefore, I should begin using this for tactical planning, or whether this is a special case, for whatever reason.