[Help] Am I a rules lawyer?

[Mouseferatu]

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

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.

That's certainly true, and I certainly didn't intend to come off saying "My way is the only way." (Though I might have been a bit hot under the collar, given that the post to which I was responding claimed that someone else was a bad DM for not specifying the game mechanics involved.)

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Hmm... everyone had very valid points... and I am curbing my need to respond to each and every one. Just one comment....

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.

<snip>

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

I may have overreacted in that instance. (Okay, I did overreact). My biggest pet peeve is the answer "Because I said so." This is true for both in and out of gaming, BTW. I get into disagreements with family and friends over that as well as fellow gamers and DMs.

I probably would have accepted an answer that made some sort of sense ("In my game, dragons use levitate, have only half the wingspan mentioned", etc.) The DM just didn't give me an answer, and I suppose that made me bring it up again after the game. Oh well..... Perhaps a holdover from my child/teenage years is the reason I hate the words "Because I said so."

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

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."

Well, the quote may or may not be taken out of context, but without pulling out my PHB:

The character gets the +x from her Dex stat to her AC 24/7 - against everything, including targeted spells - unless she is immobilized, such as being bound tightly, under a hold person spell, etc.

I normally dislike taking things out of context, but a friend is borrowing my PHB at the moment and I am too lazy to go read the SRD.

 

[Lela]

I may have overreacted in that instance. (Okay, I did overreact). My biggest pet peeve is the answer "Because I said so." This is true for both in and out of gaming, BTW. I get into disagreements with family and friends over that as well as fellow gamers and DMs.

I probably would have accepted an answer that made some sort of sense ("In my game, dragons use levitate, have only half the wingspan mentioned", etc.) The DM just didn't give me an answer, and I suppose that made me bring it up again after the game. Oh well..... Perhaps a holdover from my child/teenage years is the reason I hate the words "Because I said so."

Let's see if I can pop in here. As was said, there is no official change in facing for dragons when it's flying. The reason for this, IMO, is inherent in the dragon's attack style. Note the the Wing attack. During a ground fight, dragons still have their wings unferled and are swinging them with percission to take foes down. This means that, much of the time, their wings are streched out, trying to smack someone good (even the younger ones would still be like this, even though their wings are not yet stable enough to cause damage). Thus much of the wingspan is already taken into account in their face (which, I hope, the Palading wasn't violating).

Does that work/help?

 

[nimisgod]

To chime in amongst the chorus of similar comments,

Being a rules-lawyer is like having a talent for sorcery or psionics or swordplay (or a mutant power). It is powerful, true but it can enrich a game or ruin it.

Remember! With great power comes great responsibility!

hmm.... I wonder if there's a Brotherhood of Evil Rules' Lawyers...

 

[Mark Chance]

I hate the words "Because I said so."

Point taken.

But remember that "Because I said so" sometimes means "Your character doesn't know the answer, and I, the GM, am not going to tell you, the player."

This comes up in my campaign sometimes. Villain X does Something Amazing. The characters are duly amazed. They wonder, "How did Villain X do that?"

My reply: "That's for me to know and you to find out."

 

[Lela]

Originally posted by Mark Chance This comes up in my campaign sometimes. Villain X does Something Amazing. The characters are duly amazed. They wonder, "How did Villain X do that?"

My reply: "That's for me to know and you to find out." [/B]

When my players pop out with questions and speculation like this I simply shrug. They've grown to hate that. A lot. Which, of course, is another reason I do it.