Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DragonLancer" data-source="post: 1558915" data-attributes="member: 11868">He is a rules-lawyer as well, and as much as that does grate a little, he is a good resource for rules that I can’t remember or don’t want to waste time looking up.When I say that his current character isn’t too bad, that’s because this is his second character of the campaign, and has only been around for about 3 sessions and he is still finding his feet with it.Sadly, no, he does not (and I think refuses to) see my POV. He sees his side of the argument as correct, and doesn’t seem to understand mine. I can see what he is saying, about how the rules are different from previous editions and how they lend themselves naturally to a more twinky style (again, no offence, but I can’t think of a better way to describe them).Yes, he’s a rules lawyer and a stickler for the rules as written. He has said in the past that he must have a solid frame of rules, and that to make on-the-spot judgements that deviate a little from the rules presented in the core books screws with design of the game and makes characters pointless. An example being, in a recent scenario (just over a month ago) the party was travelling across a cold desert and was attacked by a small band of invisible Draconians. They were flying, so I raised the DC for spotting invisible opponents by about 3 points as I figured that if they sufficiently high enough above the sand it would be less likely that the party would spot any motion in the sand to indicate their presence. He rolled a spot and failed it because I had raised the DC by those couple points. His first reaction was “they aren’t invisible then.” Metagaming perhaps, but I didn’t care really. But afterwards when we (the group) were discussing the game and I explained about that encounter, he was quite P.O.ed that I had made that ruling because it clearly stated that the spot check in the PHB was X and that I had messed with his character design.It is his roll-playing that we have the problem with. When the guy puts his mind to it, he can be quite the good RPer. He’s just far too hung up on the rules, and insists on making uber-characters. As I have said, that wouldn’t be so bad if the rest of us played like that, but we don’t.I don’t use the Rule Zero all that often in all honesty. But I do make judgement calls when I feel a given situation requires it. The rest of the group understands that and supports it.I do award XP for RP and diplomacy, not for treasure collection. But the XP gained for combat is still higher than what I award for RP. I don’t think that will change unless I really fiddle with the XP and levelling system. I find that under 3.X that characters level far too quickly anyway.Well, this player and myself have been invited to join a new 1st edition game in a few weeks. I have dug my books out for that, but I have a very strong suspicion that it will drive him mad.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> We all like 3.X D&D, but his style and ours just don't mesh. I think that from reading your good advice (thankyou everyone who posted) that I will hold on until he raises the roof again, and then explain that it isn't working, and I will offer to help him either start his own game or find another group more fitting to his style of gaming.</blockquote>

Verification