mcrow said:
My question is:
Do you think the session would have been good if the ruleslawyer wasn't busting your balls the whole time?
I think so.
DM rights:
1# You decide the rules and how they are used. Players can give you input, but its your choice, even if you make it up because you don't know. I know people who have been playing for many years that still make rules up as they go, and its no big deal.
2# You have the right to toss any rules,plots, NPCs, or players that seem to be ruining the fun of the game.
3# Fudging when no better solution is OK. Just don't get caught by the players to many times. Almost every GM fudges something now and then.
I like a GM that can make up rulings on the fly (by the book or not) that work opposed to the rules lawyer who spends hald the session paging through the rules.
I don't think I could say it better myself. Been DMing/GMing for neigh 28 years, the rules are for you to use and aid you in consistently adjudicating the same situations the same way. But they are not a straightjacket, this is a fantasy adventure game here not chess.
Pacing, interesting interactions and challenging encounters IMHO make for a fun adventure as opposed to making sure the rule exception in footnote 7 on page 161 was applied correctly.
I actually really like that you included a trap. As a poster above said, it is especially good if it makes sense for a trap to be there. One could even say it sets a certain "old school" style to your campaign; the fact that the players did not prepare a "balanced" party with a rogue was their mistake not yours.
On your resident ruleslawyer, he shouldn't be asking you rules questions in the abstract, it's just too disruptive. If the situation doesn't require you to make a ruling let him know you'll cross that bridge when he comes to it. For example, if he asks a question on the climbing rules while in the middle of a lake, ask him what he is trying to climb? Diplomatically I'd approach him at the beginning of the next session and thank him for his rules advice last game. Then ask him if it is OK to ask him questions in game about the rules: something like: "OK you face X, oh John is there any special rules on X? X is run this way right?" Getting him to commit up front instead of interrupt might help.
If he is trying to be a jerk this might disarm him (or at least make it harder to hide); if he was genuinely trying to be helpful hey he's your walking, talking DMG; if he was just looking to feed his ego (my guess) this should feed it fine.
Now I know it is not standard D&D literature, but "Taming of the Schrew" also has much useful advice for handling the ruleslawyer.
