player over riding dm!

[Frost]

What if the Ref doesn't know what off-sides is, calls pass interference on plays with no passing, whatever else that horrible refs do...then that sorry excuse for a ref gets fired and will never be seen again (hopefully).

My attitude would be to learn the rules so that people will stop correcting you.

I agree whole-heartedly. But, IMHO, it's the nature of the game that a DM will have to make judgement calls about gray areas. Again, I advocate the DM as ref, not as god, mentality.

I guess, given the few details the original poster stated, we're just making assumptions here. I'm coming from the troublesome player angle (what can I say, I usually DM )... there is also the weak DM problem as well.

 

[pennywiz]

"If you're going to the kitchen, can you get me a soda?" - Herbert Schroedrocklepuss

"Get it yourself." - Thurston Willowfordelingston

 

[Saeviomagy]

I guess, given the few details the original poster stated, we're just making assumptions here. I'm coming from the troublesome player angle (what can I say, I usually DM )... there is also the weak DM problem as well.

See to me if a DM posts and says he thinks one of his players is a rule lawyer, and what can he do about him - unless the DM says "here is a specific example of a time that the player has attempted to stifle creative play", or "here is a specific rules-twisting attempt that the player has made to mess with the game", then I'm going to assume that what the DM is actually saying is "I hate this player because he knows the rules better than I do, and it's making me actually have to think about things."

Similarly if a player posts and says "my DM sucks" without specifically citing examples where their DM has messed with them, then I'm gonna assume the worst.

Why? Because there are only two reasons for not giving out specific information.
1) The individual in question is lazy, and therefore their post is worth to me what it is to them.
2) The individual is trying to obscure the truth and come out with a "yeah, you're right!" thread that they can use to make themselves feel good.

 

[Sejs]

What it comes down to, is that there are two types of DM the original poster could be.


A) The DM that is trying to do the best he can and puts a higher priority on the enjoyment of the group over strict adherance to the rules-as-written. "Okay, so your Str 20 half-orc barbarian is chucking a barrel full of grain at the huddle of bandits, as you put it 'Donkey Kong Style'? Alright, uh.. give me a strength check. Okay, and now a ranged touch attack. Cool. OKay, I'm going to handle this like a trip attempt, giving you a +2 for the weight of the barrel, and he can't retaliate." etc etc. All of this is off the cuff and may contradict some rules (by the rules, for instance, the barrel would just do some damage and not be allowed to knock the target over). But it's done with the Heroic Cool Factor in mind. Is this cool and/or awesome? If yes, then lets find a way to work it in.

B) The DM that doesn't give a flying flumph about his players enjoyment, and bends the rules over a barrel just to get a nice ego-stroke from how much power he has over them. And when the rules quoting player tries to stem the flow of suck, said DM throws a fit because his "authority" is not being respected. Despite the fact that by his own actions, the DM hasn't earned any authority... he just thinks he gets it by being the guy behind the screen.



Problem is, we don't know if it's (A) or (B) with these guys. If it's (A), then we'd all be saying hooray for the DM, boo-urns for the player. If it's (B), then the opposite.

 

[Fieari]

Yeah, I think Sejs has the right idea.

I've just DM'd two groups recently, the first of which disbanded because of OOC conflicts between the characters, and the fact that one of the players was being a REAL , and a couple others were just being asses. I'm actually thankful to this first group... I'd never had such a sucky bunch of players before, and it taught me a few things I had to do for the next game.

In the first game, the was the worst rules lawyer ever. He would contradict me on simple little rules, halt the game for five to ten minutes looking it up, and the worst bit, is that the PURPOSE to his rules lawyering was so that he could have his character screw over on of the other characters, since he had a grudge against that character's player.

He would look over the DM screen, see my dice rolls, and when I wanted to fudge a roll because it would make something cool happen, he'd call me on it, in front of the other players.

So the next game, in order to head off these kinds of game breaking things, I declared up front, a few things:

1) I don't always know all the rules off the top of my head. If you think I have a rule wrong, say so, and I reserve the right to follow what you say. I also reserve the right to ignore that rule in the name of SPEEDING UP GAME PLAY. When we have TIME, we can go back and look up the rule. If I was wrong, we will play things correctly from then on UNLESS the RAW aren't as much fun, in which case I reserve the right to ignore the rule and use my own. I will be consistant about this.

2) I sometimes fudge dice rolls. If you catch me doing this, SAY NOTHING. Ignore it. I -will- try to be fair, and honestly, I fudge dice rolls in your favor about as often as against it.

I also threw in a bunch of rules about player-to-player conduct. I do NOT want to see a group break up over such pettiness again. Thankfully, my new group is darn cool, and we're having a BLAST.

But this whole rules issue has indeed come up a few times. But because I've declared to everyone my stance on rule challenges, everyone is happy with the way I do things. I make a quick judgement call, move the game along, and then when we have some down time or the spotlight is temporarily on someone else, they look up the rule and show it to me. Things have been fast, fun, and things are getting done. Sometimes I've gotten to eat my words, but the thing is, it worked. We got through the conflict. Next time, we'll get through it better, but both times we had fun, and that's what makes all the difference.

If we WEREN'T having fun, there'd be a bigger problem. The previous group, with the rules lawyer (and the other OOC garbage) made for no fun at all. It was horrible. I really like the way we're handling things now.

But I now think it's very important that you talk to your players/DM about this issue. How do you handle rules disputes? You need to agree WITH YOUR GROUP how to handle such things. My group is happy with my way, because it's fast. Another group might really want to be sticklers for the rules, and they might enjoy that. But you won't know until you ask. So ask! Talk about it! That's the most important thing, I think.

 

[BSF]

Let's keep in mind that the account this was posted under is also a new user. Join date is September 12. This was originally posted in the Rules Forum. The poster's other post was also in Rules and was a query about homebrew monsters vs WotC monsters.

Let's not try to ascribe too much malevolance to a poster we hardly know and that might be trying to get a feel for the board in general as well. Perhaps the poster didn't think more detail would be welcome, or relevant? I really don't know. Still, venom and sarcasm are hardly likely to help the situation. So why don't we just back off on the poor guy until we hear more?

Please?

 

[Arc]

Let's not try to ascribe too much malevolance to a poster we hardly know and that might be trying to get a feel for the board in general as well. Perhaps the poster didn't think more detail would be welcome, or relevant? I really don't know. Still, venom and sarcasm are hardly likely to help the situation. So why don't we just back off on the poor guy until we hear more?

Please?

Sounds like a good idea, and also seems like it's being followed. With the exception of some humorously sarcastic replies, the general response to this post has been very, very accepting. Even if the question may not have intented to spark this kind of discussion about DM fiat and Rule 0, the fact that such a discussion has emerged definitely shows the quality of character prevalent here at ENWorld.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Sounds like a good idea, and also seems like it's being followed. With the exception of some humorously sarcastic replies, the general response to this post has been very, very accepting. Even if the question may not have intented to spark this kind of discussion about DM fiat and Rule 0, the fact that such a discussion has emerged definitely shows the quality of character prevalent here at ENWorld.

Here, here. Well put Arc. Btw, some of those sarcastic response had me rolling on the floor! Quality humor though is best in moderation of course..

 

[Li Shenron]

:\ :\ How do i put a end to player that is all ways quoting rules to me?
like this you can do that because it says in the PH this and that.

Well nothing here that isn't suggested already but...

1) Take a weekend for studying the parts of the rules which you don't know well enough. However don't go crazy to learn all the spells, and let each player know well what their spells (or other abilities) exactly do, and then trust them.

OR

2) Openly tell the other people that since you cannot afford yet to know everything precisely, you're going to run the game with more freedom. If some player doesn't accept it, tell him to take the burden of being the DM (mostly he'll probably just back off).

In any case, try to think about it as a good opportunity to improve your knowledge of the game. And trust me, a player which constantly keeps reminding the DM about correct rules is not the worst thing that could happen to you. The worst thing that could happen is a player which constantly keeps advocating the WRONG rules.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For me, as a player, as long as the GM has made all house rules up front and informs me of any changes ahead of their impact on my character in the game, I'm cool.

Having said that, if the GM does things not covered in his house rules that work against the game, we're going to have issues.