How do I deal with a rule lawyer?

[Marshal Lucky]

Well, your post seemed to imply that deviating from dice results in any fashion was cheating and that cheating is WRONG. I'm not going to say that this is either correct or incorrect for everybody (I don't get to choose what everybody sees as wrong or right). That said. . .

You're mixing up two different things. Changing or adding or deleting a rule is NOT necessarily cheating. If it's done up front and honestly, it isn't. If the DM suddenly pulls something out of his... hat, it is. It's no different in poker. There's Five Card Draw, Seven Card Stud, Texas Hold 'Em and other different versions. But when a DM decides that three-of-a-kind no longer beats a pair after the hand is played, that IS cheating.

Monkeying with the dice is the equivalent of nicking cards or dealing from the bottom of the deck. It is cheating of the worst kind.

 

[notjer]

Hmm as I thought my poor English gave the opportunity to misunderstand what I meant

The issue about fudging with dices are not always about saving partymember. Another situation could be if a npc was out of balance and should attempt a balance check. The DM would then think what would be logical or cool ad the result of the dice is irrelevant, but he rolls it because of the Players so they gets the right feeling about the situation. I dont know if I explained myself well enough, but trust me, the DM is not a ass cheating idiot. Anyways, it is true as someone mentioned: Everyone can improve.

You mentioned a case in which this player got into a disagreement with the DM over a decision made by an NPC in the party made on the behalf of the whole party. Do NPC party members often make decisions on behalf of the whole party? Are these NPC party members always or nearly always present while the group is adventuring? How effective are these NPCs in comparison to the PCs? How much does the game's plot focus around them and how much does it focus around the PCs?

He is a great DM when it comes to NPC, frankly I think this is the best side of him which he doesnt need to improve at the moment. He doesnt take the focus off the party, he makes sure that the PC can play their character to make them enjoy the game, but also show us that the NPCs is not just an extra in the scene. Of course if we dont do anything the DM needs to make the game flow and the NPC is more on the frontline than us, untill we are active again. I really dont know anyone who thinks the DM is bad or stupid when it comes to D&D, only butosei.

I will make the DM and butosei talk with each other, and I will maybe join the conversation too. After I read all the posts, I think the problem is that butosei focus to much on the stats and thinks that the DM wants too screw him (which is not true). Furthermore I think butosei needs a serious talk about the rules and common psychology (you dont kill partymember without serious reason).

Thanks for the advice.

 

[NilesB]

Thank you for answering my questions the best you could notjer. Without more info I can't be sure but, I think your fellow player is reacting in a slightly immature manner to some unforgivably bad DMing.

From the perspective of your fellow player:

The NPC in the party is actualy the DM's PC

The DM is willing to cheat blatantly in favor of his own character.

The DM is also constantly metagaming in favor of his character.

The DM will never allow the PCs to be as heroic or as powerful or as impressive or as important as his own character.

The DM's PC is always going to upstage the PCs

It's not worth the effort trying to get an edge in wordwise between the DM and himself in roleplaying situations.


And you know what? your fellow player is probably right.

I don't have much hope for negotiations, but I'd suggest you demand the DM remove all NPCs from the party and not replace them with new ones. I doubt that you'll be able to reform your fellow players behaviour without this change, and I believe your DM will be more receptive to it coming from you than from your fellow player.

 

[Faraer]

But when a DM decides that three-of-a-kind no longer beats a pair after the hand is played, that IS cheating.

According to you, and according to the rules of competitive games, but not according to the philosophy of any version of D&D.

 

[Felix]

According to you, and according to the rules of competitive games, but not according to the philosophy of any version of D&D.

It cheats the player out of his expectations. He expects his three-of-a-kind to beat a pair and he will act accordingly. If the DM decides on a whim that a pair wins, he has deceived the player; if the player had known that a pair wins, he would have played the game differently.

This can happen to a smaller or larger degree: ruling that you cannot Cleave off of an AoO isn't much; ruling that Spring Attack doesn't protect you from movement AoOs from creatures Large or larger is a big one. The one has a small effect, the other has a multiple-level character design effect. A player shouldn't be too upset at the first one, but has a right to be pissed at the second.

That being said, it's the DM's job to arbitrate the rules of the game. He may be appealed to, but he has the final say. Even so, he may still do a piss poor job of arbitrating; the DM may have the right to change the rules of the game, but doing so often without notifying the players is a sign of bad DMing. Whether it qualifies as cheating is a matter of semantics.

 

[Faraer]

Even so, he may still do a piss poor job of arbitrating;

Of course.

the DM may have the right to change the rules of the game, but doing so often without notifying the players is a sign of bad DMing.

It's a matter of style that should be agreed between DM and players. Some groups like formal house rules, others are happy for the DM to improvise with the rules and make these kinds of spot decisions.

Personally, neither the idea of caring as a player about exactly how my characters is 'built', or having to DM sensitive to such care, appeals.

Whether it qualifies as cheating is a matter of semantics.

The idea that the DM could cheat involves assumptions foreign to D&D as it has always been presented.

 

[Felix]

Personally, neither the idea of caring as a player about exactly how my characters is 'built', or having to DM sensitive to such care, appeals.

You don't care for builds?

Does the idea that allowing a someone to labor at something you know you won't allow, but don't tell them, seem fair? Would you be upset having spent tens of thousands of dollars installing a pool in your back yard, only to have the bureaucrat in charge of backyard pool permits tell you that you're not allowed to have one? He could have told you when you first talked to him about it, but he didn't.

That seem fair?

The idea that the DM could cheat involves assumptions foreign to D&D as it has always been presented.

If you allow that a DM can cheat a player out of his reasonable expectations, then while it may not have been formally addressed in a rulebook, it certainly has been an underlying assumption for every edition. The DMG talks about being consistent; consistency in rulings avoids cheating players of their expectations.

By "cheating" meaning "breaking the rules", well, the DM can change the rules around to his satisfaction; it's his right and responsibility. But when he allows an NPC to do something that he has consistently disallowed a PC from doing without any skill or ability to allow him that action? He's broken his own rules, and worse than being a "Cheating DM", he's coming perilously close to also being a "Crappy DM".

 

[Faraer]

Does the idea that allowing a someone to labor at something you know you won't allow, but don't tell them, seem fair?

Of course not, it would be unfair and incompetent.

The DMG talks about being consistent; consistency in rulings avoids cheating players of their expectations.
. . . But when he allows an NPC to do something that he has consistently disallowed a PC from doing without any skill or ability to allow him that action? He's broken his own rules, and worse than being a "Cheating DM", he's coming perilously close to also being a "Crappy DM".

Again, you're generalizing based on assumptions of play style. As a player, I expect and trust that the GM will decide outcomes she thinks best for the campaign. I have no expectation that she'll be consistent with rules implementation contributing to those outcomes, or that such implementation will be visible to me -- it's not my concern whether some NPC has a particular ability on a character sheet, or has a formal write-up at all. (As a GM, though, I happen to be usually consistent in these regards.)

 

[gizmo33]

The issue about fudging with dices are not always about saving partymember. Another situation could be if a npc was out of balance and should attempt a balance check. The DM would then think what would be logical or cool ad the result of the dice is irrelevant, but he rolls it because of the Players so they gets the right feeling about the situation. I dont know if I explained myself well enough, but trust me, the DM is not a ass cheating idiot. Anyways, it is true as someone mentioned: Everyone can improve.

If it were the case that there was a logical reason why a character would fail a balance check, then it's simply a matter of establishing the DC as being something appropriate. It falls under the heading of "circumstance modifiers" which all rules lawyers AFAIK are familiar with. AFAICT it is not within the spirit of the game for the DM to simply rule things as impossible. That doesn't mean you can't do it that way, it just means as a DM you have to assume that this way of doing things will be unfamiliar to some players.

I really dont know anyone who thinks the DM is bad or stupid when it comes to D&D, only butosei.

Well then you do know someone. I don't know anyone who thinks I'm a bad DM except for the people that do. Butosei might be out of the line, but IMO the most constructive response is to judge the issues, not the person.

I think the problem is that butosei focus to much on the stats and thinks that the DM wants too screw him (which is not true). Furthermore I think butosei needs a serious talk about the rules and common psychology (you dont kill partymember without serious reason).

The issue of "the Dm wants to screw him" might be worth keeping an open issue, as elsewhere you have alluded to the fact that the DM has killed several of Butosei's characters, while fudging dice to keep other's alive. Part of the downside of fudging dice rolls to result in what I think is "cool" is that killing people's characters I don't like is "cool" too - but the coolness factor is usually lost on the person whose character is getting killed.

In a situation of mutual antagonism - like this one - it's often the case that both parties are doing something to make the situation worse. And especially in a situation where one party has almost all of the power (namely the DM), it's likely that they can do something to improve things. Finally, as I said before, if your DM was really comfortable that he was clear and honest about how he was running things then he wouldn't have changed his ruling simply because Butosei "caught" him doing something that he shouldn't have been. By changing his ruling, the DM implicitly agreed that Butosei was right.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

I didn't read all three pages of this, so if it has been covered, please accept my humblest apologies.

We had a rules lawyer in a 1ed game I was playing back when I first started. The players and DM's were always doing things wrong, and the rules stated this or that, or the other, and not the way that the tables rules had been set up. Tables rules were stupid, and had no place in a game... anyone playing mopre than 10 minutes knows the type.

The DM had talked to this player, numerous times, as had the other players. Explainations and requests for order and cooperation had no effect on this particular player. One day, the DM got tired of the lawyer and simply stod up from behind his screen, walked over to the offending playeer, and lead him to the DM's hallowed position at the end of the table and informed him that the DM was now playing, and the rules lawyer was now going to finish the adventure.

Having been put on the spot and shown my place in the grand scheme of things, I never rules lawyered again.

I did, eventually become a rather decent DM, and a better than average player; however, it took that very kind slap to the face to show me the error of my ways.
I would suggest it to all.