I know we have "Rules Lawyers", but what

[jdrakeh]

Are you a rules lawyer if, because you didn't know the DM had "different rules", you tell them how the rules say to handle the situation because how he is doing it is wrong?

No. You're a justifiably upset player who was deliberately misled into playing the DM's homebrew rule set under the guise of "We'll be playing Game X!" (which isn't at all the same thing as "We'll be playing heavily house-ruled Game X!").

Also, would someone be justified to be upset about being called a rules lawyer in such a situation?

Well. . . calling a Bait & Switch GM on his BS recruitment tactics should be done. Absolutely. That said, it probably shouldn't be done in the middle of the game session. This kind of thing, as a general rule, needs to wait until after the session -- otherwise the complaintant is stopping the game for everybody else to focus on his own issues with the campaign, and that's really no more approrpriate than what the Bait & Switch GM has done.

If it does happen during the game session, it doesn't make the complainer a "Rules Lawyer" but it may very well make them a whiner, a poor sport, or a selfish bastard. And you can safely assume that some of the other players are thinking one or more of those things as the complaining player derails the whole game to lodge a complaint in the middle of actual play, bringing everybody's fun to a grinding halt for the night.

It's hard to recover from that kind of thing, generally. What was the problem of one player is suddenly the problem of all players. I've seen this very thing kill a good five or six campaigns (at least four of which were a load of fun for the other players until The Complainer derailed them).

This is why so many people suggest that DMs and players alike address disagreements after the session ends, rather than during the game.

 

[Nightfall]

Well maybe idiot was strong, but I'd certainly be one of those writing him a sternly worded email about his lack of gaming etiquette. Certainly when I say "Hey I'm running a Scarred Lands game!" people expect me to deviate some how. I usually let them know up front if they a) know something about it what to expect and b) if they don't what they can expect even if they don't know the setting.

 

[Treebore]

Not a name I'd speak in polite company, that's for sure.

It's "good form" to let players know when you have deviated from the usual expectations of the game you are playing. This DM evidently did not do this, so you're justifed (IMO) in being a bit put out by it.

As to your later question, my answer would depend on the language and manner used on both sides of the conversation. It's not rules lawyering to remind a DM about a rule if they've overlooked something, as long as it's done politely. If you were like "You did that wrong! With wrong sauce!!!!", that's probably a bit rude.

Again though, your expectations of playing a standard game were incorrect, but it sounds like you had no reason to know that. Calling you out as a rules lawyer was a bit much, in my opinion. Perhaps he should have just said that it was working differently in his game and left it at that. Obviously that's not what happened, so all you can do is take a deep breath and get on with things.

I'd suggest asking the DM to outline (through a house rule page, booklet, or even a text file) what house rules are being used that are pertinent to the players. That way you have a common ground, and you can be comfortable with playing and all the players can be on the same page. It's important to know the rules you're playing under in any game that humans play. Otherwise it all just ends up being Calvinball (which is fun in its own way, I guess ).

Good luck with your situation.

I looked through all my sent e-mails to him. I asked for his house rules in my second e-mail. He gave them to me. Nothing about the "house rule" that came up tonight was in there. In fact he had no house rules for any kind of combat in there.

As for how I said it, I just told him what the rules said. No name calling what so ever on my part. Even after he called me a "rules Lawyer". I just repsonded "I am here to play by the rules."

He's pretty smart, so I don't think my inference was lost on him. However, he does seem to get hot headed rather quickly, so I am waiting until I feel confident I can e-mail or talk to him calmly enough not to get him ticked of, getting us no where.

 

[TheEvil]

I have played with such a GM. After he house ruled in the middle of combat that you can't draw weapons as part of a movement, that downing rules didn't work per DMG while we were underwater and that spring attack didn't negate AoOs for reach after I had taken it, again during combat, I got a bit rude. I also asked him if there were any more house rules I should be aware of. Things went a bit downhill from there.

 

[Nightfall]

Annoying him probably won't work, that's true Tree. But if he's being a tad snotty about rules that can affect your enjoyment of the game (and other potentially) by his "insta-insert" house rules, then its time to consider your options.

 

[Treebore]

If it helps any, I think any player would have gotten upset, especially if they used a feat to get that specific advantage. Then finding out its useless, or a lot less useful than it was supposed to be.

 

[Nightfall]

Exactly. When that happens, people can be quite annoyed. It's one thing if say you have an artifact and it might help/hinder depending on the dice roll. It's quite another when it's a feat you selected, something your character would use, and it certainly seemed like no objections were raised.

That to me speaks of either a) a fearful/inexperienced DM, or b) a really lazy guy that doesn't read the rules and understand them well enough and therefore inserts his own judgment instead of the actual rules.

 

[jdrakeh]

If it helps any, I think any player would have gotten upset, especially if they used a feat to get that specific advantage. Then finding out its useless, or a lot less useful than it was supposed to be.

Sure, that would have pissed me off crazy bad -- but I still would have waited until after the game session to have a discussion about it

 

[Sound of Azure]

I asked for his house rules in my second e-mail. He gave them to me. Nothing about the "house rule" that came up tonight was in there. In fact he had no house rules for any kind of combat in there.

That's not good at all. Most (not all, unfortunately) DMs I've played under who have house rules let the players know in advance. Sometimes though, they'll come up with something new as the game progresses, and add it to the overall house rule document. Most give a "heads up" to the players involved, either before the session or before the action occurs. A few DMs (myself included) couch the idea as just that, an idea or experiment... just to try out the rule and how well it plays out, possibly with some discussion after the game.

That kind of preemptive action might be of use to this DM, perhaps? Could be a useful suggestion to this DM, anyway. It would show respect for your DM's ideas and game world, while promoting the ideal of teamwork and a shared experience. Plus, it's a bit of an olive branch if the DM is the hot head type.

It may also be worth couching your suggestions through an intermediary (such as one of the other players).

 

[Sound of Azure]

I have played with such a GM. After he house ruled in the middle of combat that you can't draw weapons as part of a movement, that downing rules didn't work per DMG while we were underwater and that spring attack didn't negate AoOs for reach after I had taken it, again during combat, I got a bit rude. I also asked him if there were any more house rules I should be aware of. Things went a bit downhill from there.

Wow, that really sucks....

I would've been really annoyed too. Probably would've called for a "time out" or something...