I know we have "Rules Lawyers", but what

[Nail]

Treebore:

Spell out the situation. What was the "surprise house rule" that was sprung on you during combat? Be explicit.

 

[Felon]

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.

Well-put.

I'll chalk this up to another much-ado-about-nada ENWorld thread. DM's modifying rules on the fly? DM's not documenting every house rule they've ever come up with? Both totally within bounds, and certainly not deserving of the implied profanity some would direct at him. There are some cases like the aforementioned Spring Attack nerf that are exceptional (if we can presume the DM knew the player had the feat before combat began), but by and large any judgment call for which a DM can provide a reasonable explanation should be respected, regardless of whether or not he telegraphed it ahead of time.

 

[Nightfall]

Rules Improviser?

Bye
Thanee

Uhm we're not talking about comedy here Thanee. We're talking about the deliberate nerfing of a character just because the DM doesn't feel like he/she has that much control in a situation.


Nail,

My understanding is Tree took a feat, used it...and the DM took exception to it. That to me sucked

Hussar,

Good point there. I however am sometimes willing to give the DM a chance IF there's a good reason. Nerfing a feat isn't one of them. I tell players right off the bat, No to most exalted feats.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

I hadn't even thought about the Calvinball analogy, but you're right -- this is a great example of changing stuff midstream to screw players, me thinks, and a better way to describe Treebore's situation than the "Bait & Switch" analogy (though this is a very real and very crappy practice amongst bad GMs).

 

[IcyCool]

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

I just have to add that the title of "ButterMaster" makes me giggle. It has the added advantage of being shortened to "BM".

 

[Nightfall]

*chuckles* Calvinball DMing... LOL! Now that's one I'll have to use some time in the near future.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Some more clarification. 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?

Also, would someone be justified to be upset about being called a rules lawyer in such a situation? In front of the whole group? Or is he justified to do something like that because the DM was called on this unknown rule in front of said group?

Thanks. I just want to know if I am being irrational.

Yes, youre being irrational.

The idealised authoritarian DM is A GOD! Or haven't you heard?

What they say goes, without challenge. Apparently.

 

[Thanee]

Uhm we're not talking about comedy here Thanee. We're talking about the deliberate nerfing of a character just because the DM doesn't feel like he/she has that much control in a situation.

A bad Rules Improviser then?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Treebore]

It was about SR and a web spell. He rolled saves, 4 of them. Then said two of the 4 were completely uneffected. I said even when saved they still are impeded etc...

Plus I am supposed to get to roll to overcome their SR. That is when he called me a rules lawyer and told me how it was "his house rule" for SR. A house rule none of us players were aware of. Then I said "I'm here to play by the rules", and we went on. So we didn't "argue" about it at that time. In fact we haven't had our argument yet. I've been waiting until I'm confident it will be difficult for me to lose my temper.

We didn't even talk about how Web doesn't allow for an SR roll. Not that he actually rolled anything other than a save.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

My first thought was "jerk" (actually my first thought was not grandma friendly enough to post).

If you are going to come up with house rules for D&D at least have the decency to let your players know about them before they come up. Some rules changes things that much that they can influence players combat actions, character class choices, feat selections, etc.

How would you feel if you had spent hours coming up with a character specialised in two-weapon fighting, only to find out halfway through the first fight that the GM had changed the rules so that the concept wasn't remotely useful any more? I wouldn't be too pleased to say the least.

I give all new players a hard copy of the house rules before they roll up their character. I also let my players know that my house rules aren't set in stone and that if they have an issue with any of them or would like to change something I am open to discussion.

Olaf the Stout