Golandrinel
First Post
Are you? Do you stick strictly to the letter of the law (rule zero) or do you bend with wind?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Rules lawyer or not?
- Thread starter Golandrinel
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I said yes, but maybe I'm more of a mix. I like to know exactly what the rules are, and I like to follow them UNLESS THEY'VE BEEN HOUSERULED.
I generally don't have problems with houserules (unless I think they're being applied unfairly or to nerf a class that doesn't need nerfing). But I hate it in-game when I come up with a cool tactic and it doesn't work because my DM understands a rule to mean something different from what I understand it to mean.
Even so, I'll let it go usually. Sometimes, though, I forget myself and act a real butt about it. I hate that.
Daniel
I generally don't have problems with houserules (unless I think they're being applied unfairly or to nerf a class that doesn't need nerfing). But I hate it in-game when I come up with a cool tactic and it doesn't work because my DM understands a rule to mean something different from what I understand it to mean.
Even so, I'll let it go usually. Sometimes, though, I forget myself and act a real butt about it. I hate that.
Daniel
Maitre Du Donjon
First Post
Pielorinho said:
Amen.
I said that I am a rules lawyer also, because i think the best way for everyone to enjoy the game is if all the rules are applied so situations are dealt with in a constant matter.
I hate it, though, when the DM misinterprets or rules incorrectly, and i correct him, and i'm right. I know i'm disruptiong the game more than I am helping, i just can't help it :\
Maitre D
RigaMortus
Explorer
So would you be a Chaotic Rules Lawyer if you were disrupting the game? And isn't that an oxymoron?
Dash Dannigan
First Post
You do realize this is somewhat of a loaded question being in the rules forum? 
I think that I am a mix. I do rules lawyer, but I generally only speak up about a rule when I see it being mangled badly. Especially if the power gamers are doing some creative reading.
I try not to argue with the DM if we disagree. I'll present my case and leave it at that. I'll also cite the FAQ or errata if I know it's a sticky area that has been clarified.
I try not to argue with the DM if we disagree. I'll present my case and leave it at that. I'll also cite the FAQ or errata if I know it's a sticky area that has been clarified.
Taloras
First Post
Hmm...id say yes. Ive been playing for a shorter time than any of my group, yet know the rules better than anyone else, and have a habit of correcting the DM when he does something wrong, or telling him what the rule is when he starts looking it up. He tends to get ticked off at me.
Maitre Du Donjon
First Post
RigaMortus said:
Hey, they're the Chaotic ones because they don't play by the letter of the Law
Celebrim
Legend
I also can be nit picky about the way the rules work. Consider my posts on the 'Slippers of Spider Climbing' thread. Those posts were based off my experiences as a PC with that item!
But I'm also - perhaps as a result of that - as a DM very prone to making up alot of house rules whenever I don't feel the rules are expressive, balanced, or interesting enough. So, I don't expect nor necessarily even desire my PC's to know all the rules. Some of my most enjoyable sessions as a DM have been with 1st time players who don't know ANY of the rules, because instead of spending 90% of thier time trying to come up with the best action under the rules they actually role play. Some of my favorite sessions as a PC have been in games that I didn't understand in the slighteest how combat was resolved.
There is nothing more boring for a DM than a rules only player:
"I make a diplomacy check to try to convince the gaurd to let me through the gate. What DC is that?"
"I'll make a full attack action... *clatter*, Woohoo, a crit...that's 62 points of damage."
"I make a search check on the floor...28, do I find anything?"
"My character is a fighter with spiked chain proficiency."
I don't personally believe it is necessary for a PC to know the rules, although it speeds the game if they know what is required of them when initiative, saving throws, or whatever are needed. All that is necessary is for the DM to know the rules inside and out. My basic rule is that if it should work IRL, then it should also work in game.
If it shouldn't work IRL, then it probably doesn't work in the game. Don't try to abuse the rules and I won't have to write new and less abusable ones. Don't try to treat my game like a CRPG.
PC's should be encouraged NOT to think of thier actions in terms of the rules, but in terms of thier imaginary environment. Let me figure out how or whether the tactic works. You worry about role playing. If I wanted to spend my time worrying about the exact way to move some minatures around some squares, I'd be playing Bloodbowl.
I apply my rules fairly. If in some situation a given rule applies, the same rule is going to always apply whether the character in question is a PC or a NPC.
I don't mind being corrected, though I much prefer it when the PC corrects me during a break in the game or after the session if PC death isn't going to be the immediate result of my wrong interpretation. But I am NOT going to be bargained with. If I don't agree, then I don't agree
But I'm also - perhaps as a result of that - as a DM very prone to making up alot of house rules whenever I don't feel the rules are expressive, balanced, or interesting enough. So, I don't expect nor necessarily even desire my PC's to know all the rules. Some of my most enjoyable sessions as a DM have been with 1st time players who don't know ANY of the rules, because instead of spending 90% of thier time trying to come up with the best action under the rules they actually role play. Some of my favorite sessions as a PC have been in games that I didn't understand in the slighteest how combat was resolved.
There is nothing more boring for a DM than a rules only player:
"I make a diplomacy check to try to convince the gaurd to let me through the gate. What DC is that?"
"I'll make a full attack action... *clatter*, Woohoo, a crit...that's 62 points of damage."
"I make a search check on the floor...28, do I find anything?"
"My character is a fighter with spiked chain proficiency."
I don't personally believe it is necessary for a PC to know the rules, although it speeds the game if they know what is required of them when initiative, saving throws, or whatever are needed. All that is necessary is for the DM to know the rules inside and out. My basic rule is that if it should work IRL, then it should also work in game.
If it shouldn't work IRL, then it probably doesn't work in the game. Don't try to abuse the rules and I won't have to write new and less abusable ones. Don't try to treat my game like a CRPG.
PC's should be encouraged NOT to think of thier actions in terms of the rules, but in terms of thier imaginary environment. Let me figure out how or whether the tactic works. You worry about role playing. If I wanted to spend my time worrying about the exact way to move some minatures around some squares, I'd be playing Bloodbowl.
I apply my rules fairly. If in some situation a given rule applies, the same rule is going to always apply whether the character in question is a PC or a NPC.
I don't mind being corrected, though I much prefer it when the PC corrects me during a break in the game or after the session if PC death isn't going to be the immediate result of my wrong interpretation. But I am NOT going to be bargained with. If I don't agree, then I don't agree
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Here's an example of my borderline rules-lawyering:
Last night, we were fighting a couple of (I believe) spectres. The cleric had just turned them; I had cast produce flame on the previous round. It was my action
The only way for me to move close enough to attack them was to move through the square that one of them occupied, incurring an AoO from that one. (All the squares on my side of the spectre were occupied by my allies; the only empty square was on the other side of the spectre; and I didn't have enough movement to circle around it.
But I as a player knew that the spectres would be cowering and could therefore take no actions: it wouldn't be able to take an AoO on me.
Given that, I asked my DM if I could tell that they were getting ready to run away in a panic. One excellent sense motive check later, and I described myself spinning past the spectre and slamming my fire-coated fist into its face.
When the spectre's action came up, it ran away by sinking straight into the earth. Technically, I think I should have gotten an AoO on it (since it has to flee as fast as possible, it doesn't get to do a strategic retreat from combat), but when the DM denied me an AoO, I didn't pursue it.
So that's my rules-lawyering tendencies. I as a player took advantage of a foible of turning that my character might not know about. I described my taking-advantage in cinematic terms. And I started to argue with my DM about an AoO, but then bit my lip on it and shut up.
Chaotic or lawful!
Daniel
Last night, we were fighting a couple of (I believe) spectres. The cleric had just turned them; I had cast produce flame on the previous round. It was my action
The only way for me to move close enough to attack them was to move through the square that one of them occupied, incurring an AoO from that one. (All the squares on my side of the spectre were occupied by my allies; the only empty square was on the other side of the spectre; and I didn't have enough movement to circle around it.
But I as a player knew that the spectres would be cowering and could therefore take no actions: it wouldn't be able to take an AoO on me.
Given that, I asked my DM if I could tell that they were getting ready to run away in a panic. One excellent sense motive check later, and I described myself spinning past the spectre and slamming my fire-coated fist into its face.
When the spectre's action came up, it ran away by sinking straight into the earth. Technically, I think I should have gotten an AoO on it (since it has to flee as fast as possible, it doesn't get to do a strategic retreat from combat), but when the DM denied me an AoO, I didn't pursue it.
So that's my rules-lawyering tendencies. I as a player took advantage of a foible of turning that my character might not know about. I described my taking-advantage in cinematic terms. And I started to argue with my DM about an AoO, but then bit my lip on it and shut up.
Chaotic or lawful!
Daniel
