[Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

[Lela]

Who reckons dragons fly to the moon to eat cheese.

You're just now figuring this out? I thought it was obvious years ago.


Yeah, I'd agree on the near Rules Lawyer thing. I think it would bug me in that situation. Personally, I think the DM was just trying to give the player a break or a bit of reward to tactical planning, maybe some glory too.

Perhaps the main problem is that it's nearly completely irrelevent. I'm not saying you weren't right, I'm just saying that most people (possibly including the DM) would just say "Who cares?" At that point it's just one thing to many to try to worry about.

Pick your battles and let the DM be in control.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Oh well, most of you more of less comfirmed what I was worried about.

So I should probably just say nothing until my opinion is asked in the future, eh?

Thanks to everyone who replied.

 

[Nellisir]

So I should probably just say nothing until my opinion is asked in the future, eh?

No, that's not the idea. What we (or I) got from your example wasn't that you asked an inappropriate question...it was that you wouldn't really accept the DM's answer. The key isn't shutting up, it's accepting that the DM makes the rules during the game.

Rules lawyering isn't about asking a question. Questions are good and healthy. Not accepting the answer is where the problems start.

Cheers
Nell.

Swag!!

 

[Darkness]

Goddess FallenAngel -

Am I a rules lawyer?

Fortunately, there's an easy test for that.

Ready? Okay - here we go:

List all things Uncanny Dodge protects against, judging by the following description only:

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

- I hope the guys have a good sense of humor Darkness

 

[tetsujin28]

There's nothing wrong with being a player who's a "rules lawyer", nor is there anything wrong with being a DM with a lot of house rules. One thing I can't stand, though, is a DM with a lot of house rules, who doesn't make said rules available to the players.

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

Yes, Mouseferatu, but not everyone plays to have high immersion. Not everyone sees damage to suspension of disbelief as a major issue.

Seeing as it takes most GMs time to come up with good descriptions, for many it becoems a bit of a trade off: Speed and smoothness of play traded for visualization. You may prefer one way, others may prefer another.

Considering the variety of tastes of gamers, it's better to say, "I wouldn't like my DM to do that" to "That is bad DMing". With all due respect, it's the DM's job to provide an enjoyable game. The specifics of how to do that vary. Bad and good DM style is not measured against some Platonic ideal, but only against what the group at hand happens to like.

 

[diaglo]

"She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

well you need to include the 4 lvls of rogue clause too.

and you still retain your dex bonus to your reflex save no matter what. b/c it says immobilized and not helpless. if helpless your dex = 0 and acts as a -5. and helpless specifies held not immobile.

okay i admit i suck at the rules. but i can at least have fun playing with them.

 

[kkoie]

Having an opinion is not a bad thing! Nor is it bad to share it either. So what if your a rules lawyer. The word lawyer has made itself into a bad word over the years, but in this case "rules lawyer" is not bad. Anyway don't take our word for it, ask your fellow players and DM. If they have no problem then neither should you.

Anyway I think you did right by your example. You made your opinion known, accepted the DM's judgement, and then most importantly waited til after the game to bring it up again.

I don't know about your DM, but for me, I don't mind people expressing opinions or questioning an action, so long as they let it drop after I've told them what I think. If they want to talk about it further, they should wait til the game is over so it doesn't spoil everyone elses fun by watching me and some player argue over rules.

Anyway, so long as your friends are having fun, don't sweat being a rules lawyer.

 

[WizarDru]

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

Considering the variety of tastes of gamers, it's better to say, "I wouldn't like my DM to do that" to "That is bad DMing". With all due respect, it's the DM's job to provide an enjoyable game. The specifics of how to do that vary. Bad and good DM style is not measured against some Platonic ideal, but only against what the group at hand happens to like.

Give that man a cee-gar.

Different groups find different ways of handling such issues appealing. Sometimes it's fun to give a descriptor, and sometimes it's just tedious. People who've played their way up to 20th level or folks who've been playing for 23+ years don't always want to hear a flowery description..and then again, sometimes they do.

It comes back to the unspoken contract, for me. The assumption that everyone's using the same set of rules. In the situation described, I could see it from both angles. However, the implication is that a resolution wasn't reached, when it sounds like it really was. The DM ruled, and decided not to rescind the ruling after discussion. He listened at the end of the game, and heard your arguments but didn't change his mind.

The question that has to be factored in, IMHO, is motivation. I will violate the rules without hesitation if it allows a character a chance to shine without interrupting the flow of the game or putting the other players at a disadvantage. In general, I still contend that the rules serve the game, not the other way around. To me, the rules are a tool that sometimes needs to back away from the fun, whether it be because of a special in-game circumstance, a cinematic opportunity, or just DM story-telling. My players and I are there to have fun, and it sounds like the paladin had more fun with his dragon knight attack than the alternative. Where it would have been a problem is if the DM is a pushover and the paladin's player is a self-absorbed glory-hound, intent on dominating the game at every turn.

All of which may be fine, if the other players don't care one way or the other. Each group is different.

 

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

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

I would like to say that a) this is probably, as you said, NOT a good example and b) IMO that isn't rules lawyering, it's arguing with the DM, since there are no set rules (I re-read the SRD just to be sure) on how much space a flying dragon takes vs. the normal "face" of a dragon.

You offered an opinion on the logic of a situation, which, by your account, was faulty.

Don't feel bad. I'm a ruleslawyer too. I'm trying to quit, although it's hard. I try to keep my interventions for when the outcome of a fight or situation would be different if the rule was applied correctly vs. incorrectly.

Anyways, don't be afraid to talk to your DM (first) and the other players (second) about it.

TS