Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this

[DragonLancer]

The situation described in the intial post only really happens (in my experience) when you have rules lawyers in the group who want the game played by the RAW. I've been there and it messes the game up for everyone.

 

[Akrasia]

There are aspects of 3e that definitely encourage this kind of behaviour (viz. consulting a book for the relevant rule in the middle of the game), simply because the game is so detailed and comprehensive, but how far it is carried depends on the participants.

Systems that are 'rules lighter' (like Castles and Crusades) are less prone to suffer from this problem, which is why I tend to prefer them, although I never had a major problem with 'rules lawyering' in the two 3e campaigns that I ran.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Speaking of Fiats...automobile owner's manuals tell you what to do in the event of a skid. So if someone goes into a skid, pulls out the owner's manual, looks up what to do, and in the meantime slams into a telephone pole, is it the problem with the car and its manual, or with the driver?

That's why I hate cars and prefer bikes. Bike manuals don't tell you exactly how to ride, they leave it up to the rider to figure it out.

In games I DM, I expect the players to make a decision about what they are doing within a reasonable amount of time. I will give them a countdown if it is taking too long. They can do the same to me as DM. If I can't locate a rule and make a decision within about two minutes, I have to just make a call. After the session if I figure out my ruling went against the RAW, I will discuss it with the group and either implement a new house rule based on my in-game ruling, or we'll use the RAW for future similar incidents, but for the session that is over, the results of the "flawed" ruling stands.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No, D&D is not like this. Certainly none of my games ever have been. We do reference the rulebooks, particularly for Grappling (which is still a major pain), but we do it quickly and if there isn't a handy answer, we make one up and keep moving. d20 + modifier-of-choice vs DC. Easy peasy.

-The Gneech

Grappling and other odd combat stats are on the Fiery Dragon cards in the old Battlebox. The AE Battlebox covers the different conditions a player can suffer like stunned.

Saves me a lot of time.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Now, this is a particularly interesting example. Per the d20 rules as they stand, it is not possible to perform this action - there are no rules for the sort of injury described. There is even a good reason for this - pretty much any set of rules to allow this is going to result in lots of PCs who are missing limbs rather quickly, to the detriment of fun. (And, yes, that does mean that in d20 Star Wars it is impossible for Darth Vader to cut off Luke's hand.)

Now, what this means is that if a player wants to do as described, the DM either needs to forbid the action ("No, you can't even attempt to cut off the creature's tentacle"), or make some sort of a ruling. You can't look up an answer in the rules: it doesn't exist.

For what it's worth, I would have gone with almost exactly the ruling you made. However, this would only apply to throwaway creatures that aren't going to be met again - if the same were tried on my Black Knight of the campaign (or any PC), I would comment that the character is too skilled a warrior for this to happen (a cop-out, sure, but if you don't do this, the PCs are likely to start chopping the hands off every bad guy they encounter, thus quickly negating much of their challenge).

For me, because the damage is abstract in the game, I'd just tell the player to roll per normal and tell me the damage and describe the viscious wound on the creature's arm

But that's just me.

 

[BryonD]

The situation described in the intial post only really happens (in my experience) when you have rules lawyers in the group who want the game played by the RAW. I've been there and it messes the game up for everyone.

I agree.

My experience is that when this happens it happens almost without regard to the rules being used.
In the absence of a solid rules structure, your typical rules lawyer will just fall back to quasi-scientific arguments and "real world" justifications or whatever else it takes.

Its the players, not the system.

Though, fortunately for me, I've encountered this less than some others seem to have.

 

[Odhanan]

From a thread on RPGnet that kind of depressed me:

*snip*

It's not really like that, is it? Because this guy's experience is the same as my own.

That's the flaw coming with systems that try to be exhaustive indeed. If you don't spell out clearly that the rules are made to be interpreted on the fly and form a frame that you'll have to mold/bend from time to time to keep the game going, many game masters will feel they'll have to be "officially" right 100% of the time. This is of course without counting the kind of players who just want to find the crack in the GM's armor and keep asking questions to throw him off (this kind does exist, IME).

Interestingly, though, this part on rule interpretation and flexibility of the DM is specified and repeated in the Dungeon Master's Guide. There are so many people who believe they know the DMG because they've looked at its tables and rules.

So my answer is yes and no: if some parties are playing like the guy you quoted says, this is their own responsability, not the game's. However, the system clearly emphasizes the problem because it wants to be so precise and intertwined. As a DM, you need to take a step back from this. Rules are tools and opinions of designers. They aren't "laws" of good role-playing. If a rule goes against the fun of the game, discard it or come up with your houserule. Keep the game going. Have fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The situation described in the intial post only really happens (in my experience) when you have rules lawyers in the group who want the game played by the RAW. I've been there and it messes the game up for everyone.

Eh. A rules lawyer who doesn't actually know the rules is a pretty bad rules lawyer. Sounds to me like a case of a bunch of people who need to read the book outside a session instead of inside a session.

 

[Gnome]

Our group used to waste a lot of time looking-up obscure rules, but we've gotten better since then, partially because of knowing the rules better, and partially because we've all agreed as a group to let the DM do temporary rulings for that particular session to keep things moving if a rule can't be found quickly.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Jeez-O Wow, man.

I'd have probably killed alot of gamers, had I been forced to play with them.

I can honestly say there's never any slowdown for rules-lookage when I'm playing or gaming. If I KNOW something is going to be coming up on my turn that may be a unique judication (an odd spell effect, for instance), I'll have the spell brought up in the S&S SRD on my laptop before my turn ever gets around, or looked up in the PHB. 9 times out of 10, I won't need to look it up, because I did before I came to the game, knowing it might come up.

When I'm running a game, I feel it's my responsibility to know most/all of the rules that are going to be involved in the game. What I can't remember, and what a player hasn't looked up BEFORE his turn comes around, I adjudicate on the spot and we keep moving. I don't brook any slow-down in the middle of action. This isn't to say people are scared to try new/interesting things ... just that everybody at the table knows that when we get down to it I'm going to say yes/no/how-to quickly, smoothly, and get the game going again. If somebody is hemming and hawing about trying to make the most tactically sound decision when it comes up to their turn, I wait about 10 seconds and if they haven't decided I start counting down from 10 ... when I reach 0 they just get passed and we move on. There's absolutely no sense in having "dead air" at the game table.

My method of adjudication? "What sounds coolest at this moment in time." (And usually, anymore, I like using Action Points in my games, so if it's a case of "I totally try to slice off the monster's tentacle!", I'll use Sunder and ask for an AP. Wonderful system, that.)

Gaming is FUN FIRST, RULES SECOND. I like 3.5 alot more than, say, C&C or Tru20 or other lighter, simpler games because the rules are there. They are, by and large, LOGICAL. They flow from the core mechanics of the game. They're not that difficult to learn, and what you can't learn you can surely guesstimate based on how the system works.

I guess I'm very much of the group that any slowdown in play is the GM or players' problem and not the system itself. Some people could argue with Rock Paper Scissors, and will do so. Anybody willing to stop the action of the game for more than 1-2 minutes needs to get some intestinal fortitude and just rule on what's going to be fun and cleave to the core mechanics of the system. Unless they're a total bonehead, I bet most of those guestimated rulings will be exactly the same, or very close, to the rules-as-written.

--fje