Sanackranib
First Post
of course as a DM I'm not shy about asking everyone else if somthing comes up that I don't know. or houseruling a rule that is stupid. usually I try to get the players input before I "rule zero" somthing
Rules Lawyers Unite: How often do you correct a DM?
- Thread starter MarauderX
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
My usual tactic is to say "Oh, I didn't realize you had that house rule," or something similar.
Most of the time, I really don't care whether something is house or official. I just want to know _before_ I make a plan that involves that rule. Since I'm much better at digesting and regurgitating rules than anyone else in my group, it's just that I pick up on the odder things first.
The only real issues I have with my DM are his rulings on Flanking and AoO.
Flanking has been getting progressively harder as he clarifies things. Initially, we lost our threatened zone and had to actually engage our opponent to provide flanking. A couple of sessions ago, he made the ruling that it was not your current square, but the square from which you originally attacked that was providing flanking. This came up when someone was grappled and got moved to a different square. Their new square let my Rogue sneak attack, so the DM said that it was the original square (opposite a wall or something) that provided flanking. I'm very much looking forward to using Spring Attack to exploit that little house rule.
For AoO, he didn't like that archers/casters could do a 5' backstep and unleash on the fellow that had been in melee with them just a moment ago. The solution was to give everyone a 10' threatened range (for AoO only) and permit a 5' step during AoO if no movement had been taken during the character's most recent turn.
Most of the time, I really don't care whether something is house or official. I just want to know _before_ I make a plan that involves that rule. Since I'm much better at digesting and regurgitating rules than anyone else in my group, it's just that I pick up on the odder things first.
The only real issues I have with my DM are his rulings on Flanking and AoO.
Flanking has been getting progressively harder as he clarifies things. Initially, we lost our threatened zone and had to actually engage our opponent to provide flanking. A couple of sessions ago, he made the ruling that it was not your current square, but the square from which you originally attacked that was providing flanking. This came up when someone was grappled and got moved to a different square. Their new square let my Rogue sneak attack, so the DM said that it was the original square (opposite a wall or something) that provided flanking. I'm very much looking forward to using Spring Attack to exploit that little house rule.
For AoO, he didn't like that archers/casters could do a 5' backstep and unleash on the fellow that had been in melee with them just a moment ago. The solution was to give everyone a 10' threatened range (for AoO only) and permit a 5' step during AoO if no movement had been taken during the character's most recent turn.
Trickstergod
First Post
Well, at the moment, I'm DM'ing, however, I find that I'm still able to correct my players on something about once per session; if not on the rules, then the game setting.
However, we're all good friends, and play fairly loosely, rules-wise, so things often enough slip by, and a good amount of the time, rules-lawyering isn't done so much to play strictly by the rules, as it is to find out what the actual rule on something is after we decided to quickly whip something out to keep the game running smoothly.
When playing, and thus, not the constant focus of attention, my rules-lawyering steps up to 1-2 times per session.
However, we're all good friends, and play fairly loosely, rules-wise, so things often enough slip by, and a good amount of the time, rules-lawyering isn't done so much to play strictly by the rules, as it is to find out what the actual rule on something is after we decided to quickly whip something out to keep the game running smoothly.
When playing, and thus, not the constant focus of attention, my rules-lawyering steps up to 1-2 times per session.
Damn your eyes and tongues! A DM is never ever wrong and as a result never gets corrected! Ha! 
As little as possible. Only if the DM makes a mistake that could cost one or more characters their lives.
I like fast moving games. I do not like it when every character's turn in every round degenerates down into debates.
I also do not give advice out of character to other characters for the same reason. I will give short blurts of in character advice that is consistant with 6 second rounds, such as "cover the wizard!" but not "you should take a 5' step to there, then draw out your bow, then ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts to cast a spell...no not that 5' square, that one..."
You get the idea.
I like fast moving games. I do not like it when every character's turn in every round degenerates down into debates.
I also do not give advice out of character to other characters for the same reason. I will give short blurts of in character advice that is consistant with 6 second rounds, such as "cover the wizard!" but not "you should take a 5' step to there, then draw out your bow, then ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts to cast a spell...no not that 5' square, that one..."
You get the idea.
Psion
Adventurer
Mercule said:
Heh. My first 3.0 group was like that.
Of course, it was nice that they deferred to my authority, but they were WRONG anyway. They tried to convince me that per the rules you could flank with a bow. Silly people...
Simple rules for would be rules lawyers:
1) If you are gonna be a rules lawyer, know the rules.
2) Don't insist on anything. Volunteer to "help" as a "book monkey" or whatever.
Rune
Once A Fool
No lawyering in my games. When I DM, anyone can call me on a ruling and I give them 60 seconds to find a passage from the PHB to support their claim that I've misinterpreted a rule. They've always, thus far, found the passage and also found that I did not, in fact, misinterprete the rules.
I like this, because:
a) it helps to keep the game moving smoothly, while allowing me to remain fair.
b) it helps encourage the players to be familiar with the rules, so they can look stuff up quickly.
I like this, because:
a) it helps to keep the game moving smoothly, while allowing me to remain fair.
b) it helps encourage the players to be familiar with the rules, so they can look stuff up quickly.
Breakdaddy
First Post
Yep, Im the DM of my group. I actually encourage players to gain as much knowledge of sections of the PHB as possible. So theoretically I have my combat rules guy, my feats rule guy, spell rule guy. etc. I also discourage rules lawyering in-game unless its an aggregious error on my part that simply must be immediately dealt with (a lot more rare now than it was when 3e was new!).
