I know we have "Rules Lawyers", but what

[Hussar]

Mind buggering jerk?

Goodbye?

 

[Nightfall]

I like the last one Hussar.

 

[Hussar]

I've wasted far too many evenings on DM's who figure that Calvinball is enjoyable when played in groups. No thanks. I got no real beef with house rules, but, when rules start getting changed mid stream, for no other reason than to screw the players, I bail.

Life's too short to play crappy games.

 

[Thanee]

Rules Improviser?

Bye
Thanee

 

[werk]

Is that a Teflon DM? So slippery no rules can hold him. Greasey DM? ButterMaster? Rules dodger? Sludge Judge?

 

[BlackMoria]

I call 'Shennigans' on any 'out of the arse' rules (it is how I refer to baffling rule changes that come up in mid-game).

Basically, you have politely done that and got called a rules lawyer. Respond by stating that you are not trying to be a rules nazi but the house rule was not revealed to anyone until that circumstance came up and that your character/feat/skills/whatever was chosen based on the default understanding of how said rule/feat/skill/whatever operates.

Further state that as a player, the game is more fun without being 'surprised' by sudden unexplained house rules coming seeming 'off the cuff' which messes with players' expectations and understanding of the ruleset which everyone (DM and players alike) operate. Nothing to do with rules lawyering, more to do with unpleasant surprises which disrupt the game.

If he sticks to his guns because he can't see it the issue, just flatly state that since he reserves the right to make rules up on the fly, you reserve the right to change/swap out any feats or skills your character has that are impacted by said rule changes.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It would depend on a couple things. First, if it was a true 'house rule' or just a 'house interpretation'. We all know there is some fudge room in the rules (if you've any doubt, don your flame-retardant gear and head over to the rules forum). If it was his interpretation of some odd event that hadn't come up before, I'd say thats fair game. Even if he was misunderstanding something, or it was something that had been covered in the FAQ or errata, everyone should just paper it over till after the session and then talk about it. No need for name calling on either part.

If it was a true 'house rule' (eg, in my game power attack is always 1.5:1, regardless of weapon), then that's the kind of thing that needs to be explicitely laid out ahead of time. And if it was a house interpretation that suddenly changed to screw the party, that's just wrong.

 

[Woas]

a Rules Criminal? Rules Defendant? Rules Crook? Rules Monopolizer? Rules Tyrant?

 

[IcyCool]

You call them a bad DM. Of course, this is also what you call a DM who makes constant bad rules calls, occaisional bad rules calls, occaisional good rules calls, tells you that you can't take certain feats or PrC's, let's you take those feats or PrC's, keeps your character busy, doesn't keep your character busy, rolls for everything, role-plays everything, rail-roads, doesn't rail-road, tells you to not be disruptive, let's another player be disruptive, and generally does anything that annoys you (no matter how small or infrequently).

Basically, if you think you are a good GM, someone out there disagrees.

 

[Janx]

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!").



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.

I find that I disagree with this strong opinion of DMs. Certainly, as a DM, I try to document any rules changes I might make (which are few and far between in 3.x). Some DM's are less organized, or miss things.

Furthermore, the matter is muddled, if the DM misunderstands a rule and the group you have just joined has "always done it that way". The entire group doesn't know they've deviated from the RAW, thus they can't document it as a house rule if they wanted to. If a clash of opinion occurs, you may be fighting a tide that is having hard time realizing they're even wrong. Calling them names won't help things.

Lastly, most DM's reserve the right to make a quick ruling. 50% chance, rules, quick skill checks, etc come to mind. Saying the DM has undisclosed house rules, when all he's doing is resolving something he didn't want to take the time to lookup, so he can keep game momentum going is a bit extreme.

As a player, your job should be play the game. If the DM is making a ruling that seems out of reach of the rules, and you know the RIGHT rule, you might mention that it doesn't match the RAW. If he wants the real thing, he'll ask you.