PDA

View Full Version : The Fine Print: Rules Lawyers in D&D



Bibliomancer
2010-03-20, 07:15 PM
Lucy: But Aslan, how? We sacrificed you on the Stone Table, destroyed your soul, and then, for good measure, erased your truename and unwrought your chakra binds! Peter destroyed you, DMPC!

Aslan: Ah, but Lucy, Peter's knowledge only went back to the first publishing of the game. If he had looked even further back, into the randomness and chaos of the drafting process, he would have known that if a creature who committed no treachery was killed through use of a number of rulebooks exceeding two dozen, the Table would crack, and all rules would revert to Rule Zero.

Admittedly, this thread is primarily an excuse to use the above phrasing, but the question is an interesting one:

What do you do when your players attempt to utilize Rules-Lawyering? Do you cut the conversation short, refer to the Rules Compendium, or let them try to justify destroying the multiverse with a paperclip?

Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?

Vizzerdrix
2010-03-20, 07:18 PM
All players should be punished for knowing the rules.

*Nod nod nods.*

Starbuck_II
2010-03-20, 07:21 PM
All players should be punished for knowing the rules.

*Nod nod nods.*

This isn't paranioa, citizen. Please report to the nearest processing center.

Nero24200
2010-03-20, 07:34 PM
Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?
Depends, pointing out a minor mistake witha spell or feat - Fine.

Attempting to abuse RAW loopholes and create obviously unintended effects (Pun Pun being the best example) - D4 up the nose.

HunterOfJello
2010-03-20, 07:35 PM
Question 1: Is the player playing a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, or Erudite?

If yes, throw books/dice at them.

If no, then discuss with them.


~~~


Unfortunately, this sort of thing is the reason why so many books get banned from tables. Players want to be all powerful and break the game and DMs have to be 3 steps ahead of the player or else.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 07:41 PM
Question 1: Is the player playing a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, or Erudite in a universally broken manner?

If yes, throw books/dice at them.

If no, then discuss with them.

Fixed that for you. Being nigh on godlike and playing passively is fine, and a response like above will likely elicit return fire of either heavier, denser objects.

Also note most extreme responses to subjective matter arise from those who do not actually know the rules or interactions thereof. If I get a book thrown at me for making a case for the Rainbow Servant (NOT an obscenely overpowered class, and the only saving grace of the Warmage) being 10/10 casting, expect the corresponding response to be...unpleasant.

EDIT : And your edit says it all. It's the PLAYER. I can work just fine as a FS Illusionist 2/Metaphysical Spellshaper 3/SCM 3/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Mindbender 1/Incantatrix 10 in an unoptimized party, without outshining anyone, and in the event we need the extra firepower, I have it on tap in a moment's notice. I can ascend to godhood, and invulnerability, with a single use of the Dusk Giant trick, but that doesn't mean I will. The player is the issue 9/10 times.

Thiyr
2010-03-20, 07:45 PM
Regardless of who it is, we let them bring it up, and then based on situation, we let either go with it or say "okay, well, we're not gonna do it that way for reason x":

-When reason x is "because I say so", we tend to get irritated as the people making gut decisions like that are doing that for player reputation and it sounding like it could be abused (say, a character having their backup ranged weapon being a ballista, even if they'd need to use 2-3 feats, activate psionic powers, and waste a ton of money on getting it functional so long as he dosen't have to go through enclosed areas).

-When reason x is a situation like our half giant using expansion twice and then jumping through a skylight onto a person and doing 125-some-odd d6s of damage, then the DM'll usually tone it down to lower levels (in this case he dropped it to 10d6 'cause he felt that was just too much. Player didn't even realize it till he looked it up)

-When reason x is "Actually, the guy wouldn't be able to reach into a box, grab something, and still double move, he could only get a single move after grabbing it" while pointing to that section of the phb, or pointing out something that would've otherwise needed to be house ruled, the DM tends to go with it, mostly so that we're all playing by the same rules.

(note, all the above have actually occurred. good times.)

Kylarra
2010-03-20, 07:47 PM
Unless we're playing paranoia, I'm pretty upfront with the rules and I expect the same courtesy from my players. My first response to them trying to add something or get me to okay something new is "what are you trying to do?". I fully expect there to be people with greater system mastery than me and/or more free time to surf op-boards.

So yeah, most of the time we don't get into rules lawyering because I know what the players are capable of ahead of time. Alternatively, my usual modus operandi is to let it go through once and then we'll deal with it afterwards. No point in scrapping the character in the session itself*.

*This has the usual caveats of the hidden trick not wrecking the game for the other players and/or being of some sort of manageable aspect with skillful DMing. Obviously things on the level of pun-pun and jumplo/diplomancy get shut down hard on the first shot.

Runestar
2010-03-20, 07:49 PM
I don't think rules lawyering is inherently wrong (is there even a universally accepted definition for it?), but I admit that it does slow down the pace of the game dramatically, so as a DM, I would institute a houserule that while the game is ongoing, the DM's word is final. Any objections or questions, raise after the game, and we will work together to address the issue if you feel you have been shortchanged somehow.

Or if you are not sure, approach me before the game to see if I can accept that rule, or have to ban it for good reason (like it potentially breaking the game). Don't keep quiet and wait to spring it on the gaming table, only to find out that the DM won't let it fly.

I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".

My point is basically to bear in mind the bigger picture (the integrity of the campaign) and not be in such a rush to voice your objections to every single opposing rule. :smallsmile:

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 07:55 PM
I don't think rules lawyering is inherently wrong (is there even a universally accepted definition for it?), but I admit that it does slow down the pace of the game dramatically, so as a DM, I would institute a houserule that while the game is ongoing, the DM's word is final. Any objections or questions, raise after the game, and we will work together to address the issue if you feel you have been shortchanged somehow.

Or if you are not sure, approach me before the game to see if I can accept that rule, or have to ban it for good reason (like it potentially breaking the game). Don't keep quiet and wait to spring it on the gaming table, only to find out that the DM won't let it fly.

I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".

My point is basically to bear in mind the bigger picture (the integrity of the campaign) and not be in such a rush to voice your objections to every single opposing rule. :smallsmile:

The crux of it, right there : Subjectivity. There are still people to this day here that swear by "The warmage and warlock are broken because they aren't coooore" and their perennial holdover from 1st/2nd edition : "Psionicks iz borkteded! No book rules changed! All bad!" And sadly, no amount of objective definitive parameters (aka the RAW) can change that, because through the virtue of circular logic they fail to see anything as right other than the narrow vision they hold. The real irony of the 2nd Ed guys is that the 2nd Ed Psionicist was a pale shadow of it's former self, and handily stomped into the ground by anything remotely close to it's level-3 or so.

snoopy13a
2010-03-20, 08:23 PM
I
I do recognize that players who interpret the rules in one manner (which may well be the correct one) would expect to play the game in a different manner from what the DM might envision when the latter interprets and runs the game in his own way. So when things don't go their way, it is only natural to want to speak up and try to reclaim what you feel is "rightfully yours".



The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 08:31 PM
The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

No such thing exists, nor ever should it, nor ever will it. It most definitely DOES matter if a DM's rulings make sense, and most definitely IS important that it is thought out. Knee-jerk Rule-0 abuse equates to a narrow mind with a control issue. Also known as "this person has no place WHATSOEVER EVER being behind the DM screen." A DM's first duty is to run a fun and enjoyable game, and inconsistent and nonsensical rulings are a sure-fire way to not only deny the players a fun time, but also a good way to lose the game (not that said DM would be playing the same game, as DnD most definitely does have defined parameters). As in the players tell the DM off and walk.

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-20, 08:43 PM
EDIT : And your edit says it all. It's the PLAYER. I can work just fine as a FS Illusionist 2/Metaphysical Spellshaper 3/SCM 3/Tainted Sorcerer 1/Mindbender 1/Incantatrix 10 in an unoptimized party, without outshining anyone, and in the event we need the extra firepower, I have it on tap in a moment's notice. I can ascend to godhood, and invulnerability, with a single use of the Dusk Giant trick, but that doesn't mean I will. The player is the issue 9/10 times.

The argument "I have all this power, but I promise not to use it unless we really need it" bothers the hell out of me.

It results in two possibilities. One, it never comes up. That's fine. If you don't use the power, it is just like you never had it. In fact, there was no point to ever having it. But feel free to optimize.

---

The second: "Hey guys, looks like we are in danger. Guess I better take the kids gloves off, and show you all why your notion that your characters are useful, important, or any way matter to the course of the battle is completely and utterly wrong. See, I can do this each and every battle, but I don't, because I'm taking pity on you and making sure you have something to do. You should be thankful and grateful. After all your utterly useless and pathetic characters continue to live because I was skilled enough to make this monstrosity."

See that? That pisses me the hell off.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-20, 08:50 PM
What do you do when your players attempt to utilize Rules-Lawyering? Do you cut the conversation short, refer to the Rules Compendium, or let them try to justify destroying the multiverse with a paperclip?

Players, how do you react when a fellow player tries to use the forbidden techniques of rules-lawyering? Do you go along with it, or take the opportunity to kill his character while he's distracted?

1. Let them justify it if I can't find a quick ruling, if it's taking a while to sort out I'd give a vote: argue this rule for a while longer or accept a ruling favourable for the players until the end of the session and I'll look it up before next week.

2. @ the bolded section: Rules-lawyering is not a bad thing, you make it sound like there is a circle of hell saved for rules-lawyers. I participate myself. Our DM usually falls back to "this is how things work in my world", though that goes for flavour stuff too (I wasn't allowed to have a really big sword with the stats of a Halberd (I thought it had reach) because the weapons worked differently, despite my accepting the weapons disadvantages as well and the fact that no-one in-game can tell its stats! I also got the same response when pointing out that, using the default fluff, Gnomes are more similar to Hobbits than Halflings are). I am allowed freedom with material and character building though I have to be wary of houserules, whether knee-jerk or merely as-yet unmentioned (I really need a full list sometime).


Edit: @/\ You don't have to be massively over the top when describing your actions when using full potential. It can be described as a stroke of luck, particularly if the DM is in on what you're capable of. The monster could have rolled a one just when you cast your SoD for all the other players know. I use this method of holding back unless I feel that my character is threatened, though because we don't often play past lower levels it's more like saving my resources for when we need them. Basically nova-ing when in danger and providing tactical advice (and/or asking for Wis/Int chacks to try and stop really stupid actions that have already been declared) at other times.

I've apparently got to tone down the advice though. DM feels like I'm playing other peoples characters for them, though I wrote all but three of the sheets in a group of seven players (including myself and my sheet, not including the DM. He's the eighth player in our group, at the moment anyway) and helped with two of those. I could play the whole party, and far more efficiently, if I wanted to and could be bothered with the paperwork. Apparently "the ground will disappear from underneath your [my] feet" if I do it again. Advice which is perfectly in-character ("you'd be best summoning a spider here, or nothing at all" when half the party was down a monstrous spider's pit with web and approaching monstrous spider) included.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 09:02 PM
The argument "I have all this power, but I promise not to use it unless we really need it" bothers the hell out of me.

It results in two possibilities. One, it never comes up. That's fine. If you don't use the power, it is just like you never had it. In fact, there was no point to ever having it. But feel free to optimize.

---

The second: "Hey guys, looks like we are in danger. Guess I better take the kids gloves off, and show you all why your notion that your characters are useful, important, or any way matter to the course of the battle is completely and utterly wrong. See, I can do this each and every battle, but I don't, because I'm taking pity on you and making sure you have something to do. You should be thankful and grateful. After all your utterly useless and pathetic characters continue to live because I was skilled enough to make this monstrosity."

See that? That pisses me the hell off.

I can do the same with Wizard 20, core or not. Saying the capability is the fault of the player is tantamount to a witch hunt, and my stance on the sentence for mindcrimes of that magnitude is legendary on other forums. Villainizing the player only amounts to being incapable of grasping the concept that casters are mechanically superior, and wanting to play a caster doesn't necessarily mean wanting to play a superior character mechanically. You've summed up the opposition to the Stormwind Fallacy flawlessly, even to the point of self-righteous indignation. Any caster that plays with the kid gloves on is being a responsible player, and probably having fun playing god, while the party mows down the opposition. If things go haywire out of the blue, having a Deux Ex Machina is a GOOD thing, especially if the DM knows it.

Yell at the designers for making all classes bow to the feet of the CoDZillas, Wizards, Archivists, and Erudites, as your wrath for responsible Tier 1 players is horridly misguided.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 09:09 PM
I am constantly making life harder for myself with the environment rules. "Don't forget that standing in deep water, my movement is reduced to a quarter-speed. Don't forget that in low-light we have a 20% miss chance to hit the goblins. Don't forget that we're fighting on an incline, so Tumble check DCs are +2." My friends hate bothering with the environment/surrounding rules and would like it if every battle took place on a big chessboard, but come on, how boring is that?

When I'm running the game, it's a time-issue. If it takes longer than a minute to resolve, I'll make a ruling and that will be the end of it. Also there have been a few times when I turned out to be mistaken (like thinking that a charge gives you +2 to hit/damage, or that drawing an arrow and knocking it in the bow are two separate actions) and I decided to do it my way instead. There's a quote somewhere on these boards that I really liked for when your players bitch about a houserule. "Excuse me, but we're not playing Dungeons & Dragons--this is [PiedmonSama]'s RPG, closely based on Dungeons & Dragons."

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-20, 09:15 PM
I can do the same with Wizard 20, core or not. Saying the capability is the fault of the player is tantamount to a witch hunt, and my stance on the sentence for mindcrimes of that magnitude is legendary on other forums. Villainizing the player only amounts to being incapable of grasping the concept that casters are mechanically superior, and wanting to play a caster doesn't necessarily mean wanting to play a superior character mechanically. You've summed up the opposition to the Stormwind Fallacy flawlessly, even to the point of self-righteous indignation. Any caster that plays with the kid gloves on is being a responsible player, and probably having fun playing god, while the party mows down the opposition. If things go haywire out of the blue, having a Deux Ex Machina is a GOOD thing, especially if the DM knows it.

Yell at the designers for making all classes bow to the feet of the CoDZillas, Wizards, Archivists, and Erudites, as your wrath for responsible Tier 1 players is horridly misguided.

It isn't the capability that bugs me, and I stated that. It is the use of that capability. Yes, Casters are untouchable in 3.5, if you play in a certain fashion. If you don't, they can fit in among a part of Tier 3 and 4 quite well. But it is when the Kid gloves come off that bothers me.

Games have an element of risk. Your characters choices have consequences. If you make bad ones, he dies. Only, having your Incantrix monster removes that risk. So no, having a Deus Ex Machina is not a good thing. It is a terrible thing. It destroys the game.

I do blame 3.5's designers for making some incredibly stupid choices. I actually think they learned from quite a few of them, which resulted in a number of the changes inherent in 4e. But I also blame those players who elect to exploit those mistakes, in order to create a character that removes all point in playing the game.

---

Also, Stormwind has nothing to do with this. The Stormwind fallacy is "An optimized Character cannot be roleplayed well." It is false.

My point is "A character who can beat the entire adventure in one round, by himself, and elects to use that power breaks versimiltude, and destroys both the story, and the game." How well your Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest is roleplayed is of no interest to me. I still don't want to be sitting at the table if you pull him out.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 09:28 PM
It evidently was the capability as you spelled out the "class features" of a core-only Wizard to a tee. And there is always a bigger fish around the next corner. No one but the Wizard will notice the power creep, if indeed there is any, or if indeed any is needed. As I stated, it doesn't matter if I play a Wizard 20 in core or a CL 177 Master Spellthief Ultimate Magus, the end outcome is the same : I play nice and the party is better for it, or the DM decides to shut his brain off one session and face the party against something 9 CR above what it's capable of and save the day by playing dirty. That is the class, not the player, and any player who isn't pulling out the big guns when threatened with imminent and potentially lethal force is deliberately nerfing themselves, thus invoking TSF. An example :

Party ECL is around 10. DM Springs a CR 12. My wizard buffs the BSF while dropping something to limit mobility. Party defeats CR 12 with passive magic carrying the day (enlarged touch-attacking BSF able to punch through DR from full PA, bad guy aggro-ed to the BSF and locked down).

Same party, now facing a Balor. Breaching Obelisk invoked for mini-time stop to activate Duelward in case he uses an autokill, buffs go up in the remaining. Round 1 amounts to curb stomping the Balor along with the BSF and Glass Cannon, using BFC as needed. By level 10 I can get a melee form going that will make most CR 20's cry. Do I use it like that? No, since I see it as horridly inefficient. But should it come to pass that all the guns need to come out blazing, so be it. And I'm not shy with the Reach and Chain metamagic, meaning the whole party still gets to have fun with it. My main goal is ensuring the DM is going to have to earn his keep in killing a player's character. At least as far as playing a Wizard goes. The best description would be playing Risk. Long term, lots of strategy, some tactics, and a bit of luck from the dice.

Boci
2010-03-20, 09:31 PM
"Excuse me, but we're not playing Dungeons & Dragons--this is [PiedmonSama]'s RPG, closely based on Dungeons & Dragons."

That is fine as long as the players are told about your houserules in advance. If not, then it more understandable that they will be a bit taken aback when you spring them in mid-play.

The Big Dice
2010-03-20, 09:35 PM
KNowing the rules isn't a bad thing. Having a player who knows the rules inside out is a useful resource for a GM to have at the table.

Hewever, rules lawyering is bad.

Rules lawyering is often considered one of the most annoying things a player can do. It's when a player with extensive knowledge of the rules uses said rules to browbeat the GM into submission.

It's also using knowledge from outside the PHB. I'm looking at you all you Polymorph fans who know the Monster Manuals inside out. I know you could say your character is using Lore skills to know about these things. But hand drawn pictures and hand written accounts aren't going to give an accurate idea of what things are really like.

Never heard of a cameleopard? Or seen a Chinese lion? They are based on secriptions of real animals. And they aren't even close to the real things.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-20, 09:37 PM
In my group, we call "Rules Zero" as "common sense". And that's it.

Boci
2010-03-20, 09:41 PM
In my group, we call "Rules Zero" as "common sense". And that's it.

But what about when the DM generally makes a mistake:

DM: The demon casts mirror image on himself.
PC: Don't I get an AoO?
DM: No because he was using a spell like ability and they do not provoke AoOs.
PC: Yes they do. Since he cannot take a 5ft step away he will need to cast defensivly or provoke an AoO.

Is the Dm just su[pose to say "Rule 0"?

KellKheraptis
2010-03-20, 09:45 PM
But what about when the DM generally makes a mistake:

DM: The demon casts mirror image on himself.
PC: Don't I get an AoO?
DM: No because he was using a spell like ability and they do not provoke AoOs.
PC: Yes they do. Since he cannot take a 5ft step away he will need to cast defensivly or provoke an AoO.

Is the Dm just su[pose to say "Rule 0"?

Personally I say he takes his AoO and rereads the rules. :furious:

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 09:47 PM
If the DM has been assuming that (Sp) abilities didn't provoke AoOs along with the party for a long time, and it's been working fine, then sure (that was what was going on with the Charging example I gave). If the DM thinks it's dumb that (Sp) abilities take longer than casting spells (I never understood why they made it that way myself), then it's his game and his right to change it. He probably shouldn't arbitrarily change it over the protests of his players, but I think virtually every campaign will have little deviances like that because the DM thinks it makes more sense a different way, or just doesn't like a certain rule (like I think it's retarded that putting an arrow in a bow and drawing aim is effectively treated as a free action by the game, so I changed it.)

Pluto
2010-03-20, 09:51 PM
Rules Lawyering doesn't go far when I DM.

Partially because my group plays very loose with the rules.
Partially because the rules are often silly and problematic.
Partially because the game is broad enough to have innumerable miswordings and loopholes.

Printed rules don't go as far as situational rulings.

For example, if a Warmage player argued that Rainbow Servant has full casting because text trumps table, and if I hadn't noticed him struggling alongside the party Soulknife and Fighter, I wouldn't let that fly.
If a Warmage player asks for Rainbow Servant to grant full casting because he's struggling to contribute beside the party Artificer and Factotum (and if I've noticed him struggling), I'll throw him a bone.

If I believed that WotC had created a perfect game, I probably would listen a lot more closely to the rules and people who nitpicked at them.

Boci
2010-03-20, 09:51 PM
If the DM has been assuming that (Sp) abilities didn't provoke AoOs along with the party for a long time, and it's been working fine, then sure (that was what was going on with the Charging example I gave). If the DM thinks it's dumb that (Sp) abilities take longer than casting spells (I never understood why they made it that way myself),

What do you mean? Most spells and spell like abilities both take a standard action to cast.


(like I think it's retarded that putting an arrow in a bow and drawing aim is effectively treated as a free action by the game, so I changed it.)

So archers cannot full attack anymore? They need to draw arrows and notch them as free actions others they can make only 2 attacks (assuming you change it to a swift action).

sofawall
2010-03-20, 09:57 PM
I am known as a rules lawyer at my table, but I usually leave it outside the game. I tend to tell my DM the amusing things I've thought of/noticed/read online, but don't actually use the vast majority of them.

Leads to a lot of head-desking though.

Runestar
2010-03-20, 09:59 PM
The DM's interpretation of a rule should always be the correct interpretation. It doesn't matter if the DM's interpretation doesn't make much sense or if most people would disagree with him/her. Some of a DM's duties are to interpret rules and to create new rules for conditions when the game rules don't apply to a particular situation. Players can advocate their position and argue for their side but when it comes down to it, the DM's interpretation ought to be the correct one.

But then he would be correct only because he is in authority (ie: he is the DM and his word is final) and not because he is an authority in the rules (he is correct because he has interpreted the rules correctly). The first is possibly the most expedient and convenient, but I feel it would be difficult to retain the respect of your players in the long run.

My stance however, is that in the interests of keeping the game flowing smoothly, players have to realize they won't really have the time to articulate their stand as much as they may want to, so I just go with a gut feel. I am certainly not going to let the session come to a grinding halt for 10 minutes while a player tries to figure out how a complicated rule might work. If he can show me the correct ruling/FAQ within 15 seconds, good for him. Forget it if he has to go trudging through piles of splatbooks. It just would not be fair to everyone else.

It is the lesser of 2 evils for me. We get together once a month to enjoy a solid 4 hours of roleplaying and monster-mashing, so we try to maximize that enjoyment. Granted, I do my best to learn the rules and prepare adequately, but in the heat of things, I will still forget some things here and there. Heck, I still don't quite get how grapple and flight really works, and if I use fiends, I will probably forget to apply their resistances every now and then. :smallconfused:

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 10:00 PM
What do you mean? Most spells and spell like abilities both take a standard action to cast.

Woops, my bad. Good thing the only time I threw a creature with (Sp) abilities at my players it got mashed before it could even take an action, so I never had a chance to make that mistake. :V




So archers cannot full attack anymore? They need to draw arrows and notch them as free actions others they can make only 2 attacks (assuming you change it to a swift action).

Others what? Sorry don't quite get your meaning.

Boci
2010-03-20, 10:03 PM
Others what? Sorry don't quite get your meaning.

If drawing forth and notching an arrow is anything more than a free action, it prevents archers from full attacking.

Jack Zander
2010-03-20, 10:03 PM
I'm my group's official rules lawyer. Whenever there is a question about how something works, the player's at my table instinctively look to me. I don't always know the answer of course, but then that usually allows me to look them up while play continues.

I've never "abused" the rules to the party's advantage (except for that one time that I pointed out to the DM that if we all hug each other in a grapple, our speed is increased), and our DMs have never cheated the rules to screw the players over (although they have cheated the rules in favor of the rule of cool). If something is not understood its usually a universal question that all of us have, not a player vs player or player vs DM problem.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 10:09 PM
If drawing forth and notching an arrow is anything more than a free action, it prevents archers from full attacking.

Oh, well, yeah. You shouldn't be able to knock and fire arrows with ludicrous anime speed the way a swordsman can swing five times in one round. So I only allow archers one attack per round.

It's a lot easier to make a called shot with a ranged weapon than in melee, though (I totally allow called shots) so ranged weapons are probably more dangerous in general (as I think it should be--there's a reason the Church repeatedly tried to ban crossbows and all).

DragoonWraith
2010-03-20, 10:11 PM
I have no idea what other rules you may be using (including those for called shots), but in 3.5 archery is massively weaker than melee to begin with, even when it gets a silly number of attacks per round. Limiting that basically means there is never a reason to play an archer, ever, period.

Mind you, this is largely WotC's fault - thrown weapons get exponentially more support than bows do in 3.5 - but still, you're very severely nerfing one of the things in 3.5 that's already incredibly weak.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 10:15 PM
I made a grand list of my houserules in the thread for that. I'm totally aware how the RAW screw archers and I hate it. In my campaign if you're caught flat-footed by a ranged weapon it's an automatic crit, and if you get called-shotted in an obviously fatal area like the neck or something it's Fort v. Death time.

IRL being the world's best martial artist or swordsman won't save you if you're shot in the back, and my houserules try to reflect that. My players understand this and accept it.

Boci
2010-03-20, 10:22 PM
I made a grand list of my houserules in the thread for that. I'm totally aware how the RAW screw archers and I hate it. In my campaign if you're caught flat-footed by a ranged weapon it's an automatic crit, and if you get called-shotted in an obviously fatal area like the neck or something it's Fort v. Death time.

IRL being the world's best martial artist or swordsman won't save you if you're shot in the back, and my houserules try to reflect that. My players understand this and accept it.

IRL opens a whole can of worms for D&D. Sword and board should be superior to THW, daggers should get a bonus when you use them to disarm, not a penalty, you shouldn't be able to survive a fall from terminal velocity, ect.

Ultimatly though, as long as you tell your players in advance its fine. They then have the option of joining or not. But if they argue with you they aren't really rule lawyers, they're just disagreeing with your houserules.

_Zoot_
2010-03-20, 10:27 PM
I find that it is very hard to know when you are going to need a house rule, what if something comes up in a session that you were not expecting and then someone tells you about a rule that you think is REALLY silly, I think that there shouldn't be so much fuss over a GM making up house rules when they are needed.


On a different note it really does annoy me when the players through use (possibly abuse) of rules can easily out preform the military's of really big countries (and start to take it for granted), this is a time when I feel it is a good thing for the GM to use rule 0 to keep the game world in balance.

sofawall
2010-03-20, 10:31 PM
I made a grand list of my houserules in the thread for that. I'm totally aware how the RAW screw archers and I hate it. In my campaign if you're caught flat-footed by a ranged weapon it's an automatic crit, and if you get called-shotted in an obviously fatal area like the neck or something it's Fort v. Death time.

IRL being the world's best martial artist or swordsman won't save you if you're shot in the back, and my houserules try to reflect that. My players understand this and accept it.

In other words, your game is so far away from D&D that trying to have a discussion about is pointless, because from this side of the computer screen, it plays like Calvinball.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-03-20, 10:41 PM
Jesus, what crawled up your ass and died?

cfalcon
2010-03-20, 10:48 PM
It all depends on the rules lawyering in question, and what the intent is. The game worlds I usually DM in are assumed to be pretty "old", in the sense that powerful wizards have lived, cast spells, died, or left the plane entirely. So if there was some little exploit that these Int 28+ gentlemen missed, the reason is because it doesn't work.

In our current group, I'm a player. I would come closest to being "the rules lawyer". Whenever I'm looking for some synergy, or spell, or something that is not implied by the description, I bring it up to the DM. Look, here's how it works by the rules. If that's too strong, then we could do $THIS or $THAT, or you can throw it out, but I want to know now so I can do $SOMETHING_ELSE if you don't like that. I never try to get horrible stuff brought into the game. If something exists that I wouldn't allow, I don't ask for it.

I've only run into a couple really laywery rules lawyers. In all cases, they were good players that I wanted to keep playing with. One sort of liked the books the way that they were- I tried (mostly successfully) to appease him by putting in writing, ahead of time, what the changes were. Once he successfully put together a chain of spells that resulted in the entire party having 22s in all stats (2ed, mind you, so that was absurd). That was pretty much amazing, and since I had allowed all the individual elements, I went with it. It helped that it required some pretty high level stuff and several months of playtime wherein the group was doing other things- it didn't feel like an exploit, but rather, a steady ascension.

The other guy would read the rules and try to come up with some interpretation that was really powerful. Usually his character concepts were cool, but it was pretty obvious that he was a power gamer. Mostly in his case, I'd have to do research on my own to make sure he was getting all the rules right (sometimes yes, sometimes no). He definitely required the most effort to watch after, but again, that was his style and I tried to support it.

Many of the things that I've seen on the net are, to my mind, holes in the system. They mostly rely on feats and classes I would never allow, or other things I would ban handily. Since I'm always open about what's allowed and what's not, it's no surprise to my gamers.

arguskos
2010-03-20, 11:37 PM
Jesus, what crawled up your ass and died?
Uh... sofawall has a point, dude. Your game, while it clearly works for you which is awesome, is not viable for discussion of the faults of D&D 3.5 as a whole, because WE don't use your houserules. No call to get crappy about it.

Also, about rules lawyering, cfalcon pretty much summed up how I feel about the concept pretty neatly: rules lawyering for the intent of greater knowledge and understanding of the system is fine to me. We all benefit when such happens. Rules lawyering to undermine the authority of the DM at the table because of personal reasons, or to make yourself better in the game, is not so fine.

On the topic of DM authority, I think that the social contact we all agree to when we sit down at the table implies a degree of DM authority. They are there to enforce the rules, and as long as those rules are made clear when everyone sits down, then I don't see an issue with them making a ruling and moving on rapidly.

Ormur
2010-03-21, 12:23 AM
The players in my games usually know the rules of D&D better than me so I often consult them beforehand and I'm usually open to their rules lawyering. If it screws up my plans too much I sometimes retroactively change some things the NPC's wouldn't have done with the rules as they quote, compensate for it on the spot (sneak attack don't work on a cloudy night- ah but the moon just appeared before the battle so both parties can sneak attack) or if the RAW is particularly unintuitive house-rule it on the spot.

They are good optimizers but they never strive to break the game. Rules lawyering pun-pun, infinite loops and such would certainly invoke DM smote but they just don't do stuff like that.

Kallisti
2010-03-21, 12:43 AM
In groups I've played in, the rules have varied from "Let the GM make something up and we'll start using the official rule after this session" to "It's canon if you can show me RAW for it." The usual compromise, at least in my experience is that if the "rules-lawyer" makes the correction while it's still relevant as opposed to a few turns later, and either the GM trusts the player's system knowledge or they can produce RAW within two or three minutes, we'll make the correction then, and if not the "rules-lawyer" can quickly summarize the rule after the session and it'll stand thereafter.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-03-21, 12:57 AM
My group played pretty straight raw, but it probably helped that I insisted each of their characters abilities/spells/feats had a book and page number next to it. IE: Power attack (phb pg98) or Claws of the Beast (xph pg83)

It's amazing how much smoother this game runs when you know exactly where to find the rules, and a little 7 figure notation is no real hassle at all. It helps that I can personally look up most of the more obscure rules in core in about 45 seconds, without such notes. IE: the grappling rules.

sonofzeal
2010-03-21, 01:44 AM
Our previous DM new absolutely nothing about the rules. Like, not even how attack rolls work, or what a reasonable number for AC was. Somehow, he was one of our best DMs ever.

Our current DM is much more conventional, and I'm the Rules Guru. I play a Tashalatora PsiWar in a game where I think there's only one other character who's comfortable even Multiclassing... but I help everyone else, so it works. It's actually fun for me being asked to summarize complex rules questions for which there is no widely accepted RAW answer, in five minutes, to near-newbs.

DM: "So you're charging the Stone Golem with your Flaming Shield using Shield Charge, while the Golem's standing on Grease, but is Magic Immune, so.... Zeal?"

(Answers: Enhancement bonus still works, bonus Flaming damage is disputed and needs DM ruling, trip attack is as normal, Grease technically doesn't help the Trip but makes if flatfooted to the attack and could give a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus at DM's discretion.)

Math_Mage
2010-03-21, 03:37 AM
DM: "So you're charging the Stone Golem with your Flaming Shield using Shield Charge, while the Golem's standing on Grease, but is Magic Immune, so.... Zeal?"


*applause*

I haven't really played enough to comment on the topic, and haven't DM'd at all. The two DMs I play with IRL are opposites, but both frustrating; one railroad-focused on RPing out a particular story he's set up, the other mindlessly marching through the mechanics of a game whose rules he, er, *claims* to remember...I find PbP to be a much more rewarding experience. Maybe soon I'll set up a campaign module and give it a go. Where was I going with this? Oh, right, neither DM is very fun to rules-lawyer for, because one doesn't really care about the rules and the other doesn't really want to buckle down and admit he needs a refresher course. So, meh.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-03-21, 04:06 AM
KNowing the rules isn't a bad thing. Having a player who knows the rules inside out is a useful resource for a GM to have at the table.

Hewever, rules lawyering is bad.

I've got some contention with this, as that term can be very subjective. Are we talking heated debates where neither side is willing to drop the issue or simply going "Hey, I don't think AoOs work that way. Let me check really fast/page X/ask Bob?"


lawyering is often considered one of the most annoying things a player can do. It's when a player with extensive knowledge of the rules uses said rules to browbeat the GM into submission.

I'm starting to think the latter now.:smalltongue:


It's also using knowledge from outside the PHB. I'm looking at you all you Polymorph fans who know the Monster Manuals inside out. I know you could say your character is using Lore skills to know about these things. But hand drawn pictures and hand written accounts aren't going to give an accurate idea of what things are really like.

Never heard of a cameleopard? Or seen a Chinese lion? They are based on secriptions of real animals. And they aren't even close to the real things.

Well, now, you may not get a complete picture of what some form is capable of, but most of the time it's something simple like "Hey, I've heard this type of lizardman has really tough scales that cause weapons to bounce off them: hold still!" and "Hey, Blackleaf, think you can keep your precision if you've got twelve heads?" or something more outlandish with shenanigans involving Beholders, Assume Supernatural Ability, and removing your antimagic eye?

One of the things that is really great about the later monster manuals, and, really, every book with monsters past a certain point is that they have some pretty solid Knowledge (whatever) DCs to know what the usual Purple People Eater can do. This way, a player can know that Beholders have some weird eye-tendrils and a way to stop magic, but may not know everything that those tendrils can do.




As for myself, in every group I've played, I'm known as a rules lawyer, although not all of those groups use that term. Hell, most of them that do either say "rules lawyer" jokingly and/or as something approximating a compliment. I've tried to help everyone with what I know, even if they don't use it. G.I. Joe and all that jazz.

[minor-rant->story-time]
In one of my older groups, the DM was terribly shoddy with the rules and running games in general. Nothing ever had stats, most of it was fanwank or for "his metaplot" and so on. At one point, I had a good 30 minute argument over whether something was (Su) or (Ex). I can't recall how it started, but I know it grew to me butting heads with both another player and the DM, grew to me reading word for word from the PHB and finally ended a few minutes later with the DM asking "Why didn't you say that before?" when I finally pointed out the text to him and saying "I did."



During the first session I had with one of my current (and better) groups, the GM said "If something comes up, I'll make a ruling on the spot: don't interrupt me, but do mention it to me after game so we'll be better prepared for next game." At first, I was bothered by the whole "wait till end of game" bit, but this was certainly better than the previous group from above.

Oddly enough, though, that compromise has changed dramatically and only ever once was done as stated. As we were playing SWSE at the time, most of us had access to digital copies of the material, myself playing almost exclusively from my laptop. Whenever something questionable came up, I could usually find the page and info within one round of combat out of game. Eventually, we came to the point where I and whoever had the physical text in hand at the time would actually be allowed about a minute to find something before the GM would give his ruling, if necessary.

Of course, this current group also had one battle where one of the characters was taken hostage by lightsaber point. The GM paused, said "I know the books don't say these things are lethal just one attack, but for purposes of discussion, assume that Bis's life is on the line here." None of us bothered with it, including the guy who was playing Bis.Sure, it's a house-rule, which can lead into a very grey area when it comes to discussion, but it's generally safe to save we're working with an imperfect system, and, as long as a strong majority of the group agrees that such a liberal application of the rules improves the game, then run with it.

Conversely, that doesn't mean the GM should throw down house-rules at random, but rather should wait until a situation arises that would warrant such - like above - or should be presented at the start of game so everyone's at the same table.

Even though we've switched to Deadlands, to this day, when something questionable comes up (that isn't hidden away somewhere in No Man's Land) I've generally able to get the text up quick enough to resolve the problem.[/-minor-rant->story-time]

tl;dr of the spoiler'd section:

Our previous DM new absolutely nothing about the rules. Like, not even how attack rolls work, or what a reasonable number for AC was. Somehow, he was one of our best DMs ever.

*snip*

DM: "So you're charging the Stone Golem with your Flaming Shield using Shield Charge, while the Golem's standing on Grease, but is Magic Immune, so.... Zeal?"

(Answers: Enhancement bonus still works, bonus Flaming damage is disputed and needs DM ruling, trip attack is as normal, Grease technically doesn't help the Trip but makes if flatfooted to the attack and could give a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus at DM's discretion.)

Basically this. Also, props to you, Zeal.

Iceforge
2010-03-21, 04:14 AM
I usually let my players know up front that some rules are going to be bend a lot during the course of a campaign.

Now, I don't DMPC or anything like what was mentioned above, but I do invent powers and special abilities for villians that does not, as far as I am aware myself, exist anywhere in any official rules.

For instance, I had one spellcasting enemy have the ability to share spells on her familiar over vast distances, which lead to a rather tough fight for them against a raven when they trapped her familiar which had been following them to keep an eye on them (this was limited to spells which was benifitial to the Raven, it could not deliver damaging or offensive spells on a distance)

My special rules are intenally consistent through, so there is no cheating (so no "damn, I didn't count on them doing that, I better invent a way for my BBEG to get around that")

Most of my rules are for flavour through, and I have rarely been questioned by any player about "how is that possible?" with them expecting an answer based on the official rules

EDIT: Oh, and the few times a player has asked "how is that possible?", they haven't been angry when I explained it was a special rule, merely disappointed because they thought it was neat and would like to have added it to their builds, but often the flavour effects I create are unique to various beings.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-21, 04:38 AM
To The Big Dice, reread Knowledge in the PHB, and double check it with Knowledge Devotion and (I want to say) the Monster Manual. There are rules for knowing a monster's abilities, even if you've never seen them. Knowledge (Arcana) roll of 45 pretty well means whatever creature under that category is no stranger to the character who rolled it, either through exposure and observation, superior research, or lab work (yes, wizards do this especially...how the hell do you think we got Owlbears?). Furthermore, if that doesn't work, there are plenty of ways to figure out what something is capable of ahead of time, and even in the midst of combat (divination, or "DM, gimme the notes").

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-21, 05:58 AM
I think that some opposition to DM fiat has its place in D&D. Dungeons & Dragons is neither a freeform nor a rules-light RPG. It includes many fairly specific rules, and disregarding them defeats the point of having them. Yes, broadly speaking, the game isn't meant to be a competition between the DM and the players, but individual encounters kind of are.

There are supposed to be unexpected surprises, both for the players and the DM; isn't that the whole point of deliberately introducing a bunch of randomness via dice-rolling? Yeah, if the BBEG always escapes until the final scene, if no PC ever dies, the story may progress more smoothly... but that's, uh, kinda boring. It's a bit more interesting and likely a lot less formulaic if you can't rely on everything going as planned. That's sort of the point.

On the other hand, coming up with something different when the written rules make no sense isn't an abuse of power, but a normal part of the DM's job. A computer programmed to implement the game's rules would explode from the contradictions, as they say. To increase game balance, verisimilitude, or consistency through house rules is generally commendable. Before making changes to mechanics used by player characters, however, it's best to discuss your ideas with the group first. And if you find that they usually dislike the same changes that you like, then perhaps you DMing for this group isn't the best of choices. Perhaps.

The Big Dice
2010-03-21, 07:35 AM
To The Big Dice, reread Knowledge in the PHB, and double check it with Knowledge Devotion and (I want to say) the Monster Manual. There are rules for knowing a monster's abilities, even if you've never seen them. Knowledge (Arcana) roll of 45 pretty well means whatever creature under that category is no stranger to the character who rolled it, either through exposure and observation, superior research, or lab work (yes, wizards do this especially...how the hell do you think we got Owlbears?). Furthermore, if that doesn't work, there are plenty of ways to figure out what something is capable of ahead of time, and even in the midst of combat (divination, or "DM, gimme the notes").

A Knowledge (Arcana) roll of 45 isn't something easy to make. You're looking at a total skill modifier of +35 to be on a 50/50 chance of rolling that. Which kind of implies by itself that you're at a pretty high level.

This is an example of what I mean by rules lawyering being used as a means to beat a GM around the head with the rules. I'm experienced enough to be able to put in-game checks and balances on things like this without nerfing Polymorph into being completely useless. But a common attitude seen on various forums is for a player to say "I'll turn into X because that gives me A, B and C, even though my character has no reasonable way of actually knowing what he's turning in to."

One of the problems D&D and it's variants have is that it is a very rules heavy game. That can cause problems in some cases, especially when you have a player at the table who knows and explits the rules better than the GM does.

Options like limiting the number of sourcebooks in use or insisting that to change classes, characters need to find an NPC or other means to teach them the ways of that particular class are a simple, effective and non rules based way to use the game world to the GM's advantage.

Or you could, as I've done in the past, study up on a particular aspect of the rules and use that to beat the characters to within an inch of their life. BUt i find situation and setting to be less confrontational ways to deal with what can be a real problem.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 07:53 AM
A Knowledge (Arcana) roll of 45 isn't something easy to make. You're looking at a total skill modifier of +35 to be on a 50/50 chance of rolling that. Which kind of implies by itself that you're at a pretty high level.

No, it implies high optimization:
+13 from Item Familiar (assuming lv 10)
+15 Skill item (+30 is Epic) (cost 22, 500 to within WBL by level 10)
Skill Focus

Assuming level 10: (+13 Skill Rank)
You have currently a bonus of 1d20 + 44 + Int.

Hmm, Let us try level 6 (9 ranks).
1d20+ 30 (this assumes +9 Skill item)
add 20 Int = +5.
We now have +35 bonus.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-03-21, 08:12 AM
Options like limiting the number of sourcebooks in use or insisting that to change classes, characters need to find an NPC or other means to teach them the ways of that particular class are a simple, effective and non rules based way to use the game world to the GM's advantage.

Or you could, as I've done in the past, study up on a particular aspect of the rules and use that to beat the characters to within an inch of their life. BUt i find situation and setting to be less confrontational ways to deal with what can be a real problem.

This bothers me, particularly the NPC method. Limiting sourcebooks is generally fine, assuming such limitations are known at the start of game. The whole "need a master" method can be trouble-some, to me, however, as most of the time when I sit down and make a character I've got a very, very rough idea of his past defined. I have also seen many games of the bear and pretzel variety where there was less story and more shenanigans or hack n' slashing.

Sure, looking for a master of some obscure art can have some interesting role playing potential, but, if you've got a level 1 party together and the only caster dies, leaving the group to fret over needing such a replacement but don't want to worry about Bob playing Tim 2, one of them may switch gears.

As for actually working within the system instead, you don't always have to go for a no-hold's bare beatdown. If you're done to such a point, subterfuge, which 3.5 does not do terribly well at, admittedly (outside of +casters), would probably be the better result, but that may just be my bias for trickery. If nothing else, the GM has NI "characters" available to a party's 3-8ish. War of attrition works, if nothing else.

Yukitsu
2010-03-21, 11:58 AM
I am my groups personal rules lawyers. I point out when people are explicitly breaking one of the rules, but don't say anything if they are doing something not covered at all by the rules as far as I know.

I do have a bit of a personal code of conduct though. I only rules lawyer if a player is about to die from an illegal move, if a BBEG is about to die from an illegal move, or if the player is trying to accomplish something that is world endingly powerful that I know will lead to either of the above two situations later.

I never argue in favour of the rules for extremely broken combos or loops, but I do know the technicalities strongly enough to argue plausibly against the really disruptive ones. Locate city nukes for instance were tried, almost accepted and then shot down. Things like pun-pun similarly.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-21, 12:21 PM
I am our group's rules guru (kind of like Zeal in that they'll turn to me before whipping out their books) and also happen to be our usual DM, so usually things run quite smoothly with only a few rules question per session. On the rare occasion when I play, I only bring things up with the DM if a mistake he's making drastically changes things (like last night, when a first-time DM threw a beholder at our 8th-level party and (A) let it open and close its central eye at will rather than 1/turn and (B) let it fire all of its rays in the same arc).

Starbuck_II
2010-03-21, 12:23 PM
I am our group's rules guru (kind of like Zeal in that they'll turn to me before whipping out their books) and also happen to be our usual DM, so usually things run quite smoothly with only a few rules question per session. On the rare occasion when I play, I only bring things up with the DM if a mistake he's making drastically changes things (like last night, when a first-time DM threw a beholder at our 8th-level party and (A) let it open and close its central eye at will rather than 1/turn and (B) let it fire all of its rays in the same arc).

Did the Party survive?

KellKheraptis
2010-03-21, 12:31 PM
A Knowledge (Arcana) roll of 45 isn't something easy to make. You're looking at a total skill modifier of +35 to be on a 50/50 chance of rolling that. Which kind of implies by itself that you're at a pretty high level.

This is an example of what I mean by rules lawyering being used as a means to beat a GM around the head with the rules. I'm experienced enough to be able to put in-game checks and balances on things like this without nerfing Polymorph into being completely useless. But a common attitude seen on various forums is for a player to say "I'll turn into X because that gives me A, B and C, even though my character has no reasonable way of actually knowing what he's turning in to."

One of the problems D&D and it's variants have is that it is a very rules heavy game. That can cause problems in some cases, especially when you have a player at the table who knows and explits the rules better than the GM does.

Options like limiting the number of sourcebooks in use or insisting that to change classes, characters need to find an NPC or other means to teach them the ways of that particular class are a simple, effective and non rules based way to use the game world to the GM's advantage.

Or you could, as I've done in the past, study up on a particular aspect of the rules and use that to beat the characters to within an inch of their life. BUt i find situation and setting to be less confrontational ways to deal with what can be a real problem.

It was a broad example, and your idea of "not knowing what they're trying to turn into" is INCREDIBLY subjective. Furthermore, I will contend and object to the narrow approach of requiring a teacher to my last dying breath, being both a self-taught neoclassical guitarist (yeah, that's sweep picking, 8 finger tapping, the works) and martial artist. You massively underestimate the ability of a person, particularly one supposedly far more intelligent than any RL human, to learn on their own.

EDIT : And to put this to bed once and for all, bloody PAZUZU only requires a 25, and can be done AT LEVEL FREAKING ONE. Need I say more?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-21, 12:32 PM
Did the Party survive?

Once I pointed out those two issues, we were fine; the wizard got it in Evard's black tentacles, the bard turned it away and closed all its eyes with puppeteer, the factotum (me) smacked it with a bunch of d6s of sneak attack...and then a bit of DM Ex Machina happened. :smallannoyed: I talked to him afterward, and he's going to retcon that and be a little less railroad-y from now on, though, so it's all good.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-21, 12:34 PM
What do you do when your players attempt to utilize Rules-Lawyering?

If they're trying for lengthy arguments at the game table and/or saying that some ridiculous thing should happen because it's technically allowed by the rules, I tell them no by rule zero, end of story.

And yes, in Paranoia that means their character dies.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-21, 12:40 PM
On the Polymorph thing, highest DC to know two useful things about a creature that you can become when Polymorph is first widely available (level 7) is 17. Assuming max ranks in an appropriate skill and a +4 Int bonus gives a +14. You know enough to know that a form will be useful for your situation 17 times in 20 at most lower levels and more often as you gain levels. That is not an optimised example, nor does it use any kind of boost beyond the class, its skills and a reasonable ability in Int (17/18 +1 at level 4). I don't think you can argue that they wouldn't know about most creatures worth turning into (Hydra needs Know: Arcana, something most Wizards (or even Sorcerors) would have, Outsider forms all need Know: The Planes, another reasonable assumption, Dragons also need Arcana. Only problem I can see is Troglodyte (for Alter Self) which needs Know: Local, but the check is easy to pass with one rank (can't use it untrained) and a normal (for a Wizard) Int bonus).

I often get turned to for rulings, everyone knows I've read the rules for fun on multiple occasions. The problem is that they turn to me before the DM, who has a "DM is god"-type attitude and gets very irritated whenever it happens.

Emmerask
2010-03-21, 12:45 PM
Question 1: Is the player playing a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, or Erudite?

If yes, throw books/dice at them.

If no, then discuss with them.


Books wear out pretty fast and dice are always lost in some black hole or something. Knives on the other hand are easily retrieved from the body parts they have pierced :smallbiggrin:

KellKheraptis
2010-03-21, 12:46 PM
On the Polymorph thing, highest DC to know two useful things about a creature that you can become when Polymorph is first widely available (level 7) is 17. Assuming max ranks in an appropriate skill and a +4 Int bonus gives a +14. You know enough to know that a form will be useful for your situation 17 times in 20 at most lower levels and more often as you gain levels. That is not an optimised example, nor does it use any kind of boost beyond the class, its skills and a reasonable ability in Int (17/18 +1 at level 4). I don't think you can argue that they wouldn't know about most creatures worth turning into (Hydra needs Know: Arcana, something most Wizards (or even Sorcerors) would have, Outsider forms all need Know: The Planes, another reasonable assumption, Dragons also need Arcana. Only problem I can see is Troglodyte (for Alter Self) which needs Know: Local, but the check is easy to pass with one rank (can't use it untrained) and a normal (for a Wizard) Int bonus).

I often get turned to for rulings, everyone knows I've read the rules for fun on multiple occasions. The problem is that they turn to me before the DM, who has a "DM is god"-type attitude and gets very irritated whenever it happens.

That isn't an issue with knowing the rules, but with a DM who grows offended when the players do not properly stroke his ego.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-21, 01:58 PM
That isn't an issue with knowing the rules, but with a DM who grows offended when the players do not properly stroke his ego.

It's not that bad, usually he just looks at me as if he's slightly annoyed and declares corrections to whatever I've said, or I say it's his call if I remember to. If he's had a bad day he might raise his voice slightly and remind the player that he decides the rules of the game. He does take the DM superiority thing too far occasionally with things like "if I say lighning strikes you out of a clear sky, it happens". I would be harsh if someone acted as if classes had fluff attatched to them, or if someone was chanting "fumble, fumble, fumble!" while another player was rolling, or if the Stormwind or Oberoni Fallacies were applicable to a statement the player had made. We just do things differently. I can't complain too much though, he puts up with me optimising other peoples' characters, optimising my characters to a greater extent (though I hold back and will then take off the kid gloves when I feel I need to, or to give better roleplaying) and he allows all WoTC sourcebooks. He is a good DM most of the time, he's just a bit too keen on houseruling and rolling for everything for my tastes. The only other person in our group who has tried to DM seriously over more than a week gave us "you arrive at a castle" with no explanation as to why we are there, why our characters are together or any other information (twice actually). He makes up something resembling a plot as he goes along and needs a fair bit of help with rules. Freeform or Epic play would be good DM'ed by him, games which are not at all serious or games trying interesting but not very effective things (e.g. monsters-as-races. See the Improved Monster Classes thread in Homebrew for a good fix for that particular one, I'm working on bits of it myself) are also good with him. All DMs in our group have been railroad heavy on their first tries (not including our usual, and current, DM but including me).

I've got no other games that I can go to with any degree of regularity so I'll gladly put up with a few failings.

Fitz10019
2010-03-21, 02:04 PM
Commonly, the rules-lawyer type reacts to the breaking or oversite of a 'minor' rule. Non-lawyer types often think a review of the minor rule is not worth spending time on. However, the lawyer type is looking at not only the current situation, but also how this ruling, as a precedent, will affect the interpretation of other rules based on the minor rule. To the lawyer type, no rule is 'minor' when other rules are based on it.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-03-21, 02:16 PM
Because our group decided to be a tad lax with the rules, last session I was reincarnated as a Goblin were-orca whale!

...

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not.

Gametime
2010-03-21, 02:33 PM
This bothers me, particularly the NPC method. Limiting sourcebooks is generally fine, assuming such limitations are known at the start of game. The whole "need a master" method can be trouble-some, to me, however, as most of the time when I sit down and make a character I've got a very, very rough idea of his past defined. I have also seen many games of the bear and pretzel variety where there was less story and more shenanigans or hack n' slashing.



That sounds terrifying. And also awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Would it be considered meta-rules lawyering if I pointed out that a discussion of rules lawyering that is lacking in any contextual agreement about what rules lawyering consists of is going to be ultimately pointless because both sides will continue to argue about their perception of what the term entails rather than responding to the intended points of their opponents?

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 02:33 PM
2. @ the bolded section: Rules-lawyering is not a bad thing, you make it sound like there is a circle of hell saved for rules-lawyers. I participate myself.

I apologize if my tone was excessive there. I was simply exaggerating the somewhat pervasive dislike of long-duration rules debates. I debate the rules with my DM (most recently when my wizard failed to kill a minor BBEG due to a rule variation in the module [shield granted Touch AC] that we had not been informed of beforehand), although I try to avoid taking too long to do so.


I am known as a rules lawyer at my table, but I usually leave it outside the game. I tend to tell my DM the amusing things I've thought of/noticed/read online, but don't actually use the vast majority of them.

Leads to a lot of head-desking though.

As his DM, this turns out to be an informative (is sometimes painful) process that avoids bogging the game discussion down in minutiae. I'd recommend this as a good balance for anyone with a tendency to argue over rules (ie, discuss the more obvious holes with your DM before they come up in the game).


I'm my group's official rules lawyer. Whenever there is a question about how something works, the player's at my table instinctively look to me. I don't always know the answer of course, but then that usually allows me to look them up while play continues.

I sometimes fulfill this function at our table, since I have a fairly good memory (I've memorized that WBL is DMG 135, since it's referenced so often, for example). It's often good to have a player at the table to look things up so the DM can continue with the main story.


On a different note it really does annoy me when the players through use (possibly abuse) of rules can easily out preform the military's of really big countries (and start to take it for granted), this is a time when I feel it is a good thing for the GM to use rule 0 to keep the game world in balance.

Well, D&D is designed to be player(and thus adventurer)-centric. The main thing that you can assume is that those countries have access to high level retired adventurer citizens (logically, when an adventurer retires they're going to get attached to the surrounding countryside, at least a little).


It all depends on the rules lawyering in question, and what the intent is. The game worlds I usually DM in are assumed to be pretty "old", in the sense that powerful wizards have lived, cast spells, died, or left the plane entirely. So if there was some little exploit that these Int 28+ gentlemen missed, the reason is because it doesn't work.

I tend to use this as the assumption for my worlds, whether or not they're a campaign setting like Eberron (I used the above explanation recently to answer the question of why Artificers with CL 80 Staffs of [alignment] didn't end the Last War). In general, if these loopholes ever existed, some of those historical wizards fixed them.


The players in my games usually know the rules of D&D better than me so I often consult them beforehand and I'm usually open to their rules lawyering. If it screws up my plans too much I sometimes retroactively change some things the NPC's wouldn't have done with the rules as they quote, compensate for it on the spot (sneak attack don't work on a cloudy night- ah but the moon just appeared before the battle so both parties can sneak attack) or if the RAW is particularly unintuitive house-rule it on the spot.

Often, you can also say "Oh, it works," and the players will provide you with half a dozen reasonable explanations as guesses in the next few seconds. Pick one that you like and nod enigmatically.


Would it be considered meta-rules lawyering if I pointed out that a discussion of rules lawyering that is lacking in any contextual agreement about what rules lawyering consists of is going to be ultimately pointless because both sides will continue to argue about their perception of what the term entails rather than responding to the intended points of their opponents?

Quite possibly. However, within the given ambiguous reference frame, it is still possible to hold a meaningful discussion about how to cope with and/or utilize said technique within a D&D game, since posters provide enlightening examples of previous solutions as evidence to support their positions.

Kylarra
2010-03-21, 02:37 PM
If they're trying for lengthy arguments at the game table and/or saying that some ridiculous thing should happen because it's technically allowed by the rules, I tell them no by rule zero, end of story.

And yes, in Paranoia that means their character dies.
This is a more concise way of stating how my table usually goes.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-21, 02:55 PM
This is a more concise way of stating how my table usually goes.

If they manage to invent a useable crossover version Call of Cthulu and Paranoia, it may well be possible to have a game that ends before you arrive at the table.

Out of curiosity, what is the longest length of time one character has survived in your paranoia games (with or without replacement clones)?

Kurald Galain
2010-03-21, 05:51 PM
Out of curiosity, what is the longest length of time one character has survived in your paranoia games (with or without replacement clones)?

Wellll....

In one case, that was about an hour and a half. At that point, one player pointed out that this guy's character was unusual, in that his survival lifetime was significantly much longer than that of everyone else... since (1) a good clone is willing to give his life for Alpha Complex, and (2) this guy hadn't died so far, it followed that (3) he was a TRAITOR!!!

So yeah, the clever long-lasting guy was killed for meta reasons. That was pretty awesome.

Private-Prinny
2010-03-21, 08:11 PM
Furthermore, I will contend and object to the narrow approach of requiring a teacher to my last dying breath, being both a self-taught neoclassical guitarist (yeah, that's sweep picking, 8 finger tapping, the works) and martial artist. You massively underestimate the ability of a person, particularly one supposedly far more intelligent than any RL human, to learn on their own.

I, as a DM, use a test of some sort before prestiging, but I use a different thought system. If you teach yourself something, you generally have to have some idea what you're doing (i.e. look up related material and study it).

If you were, to use your example, a self-taught neoclassical guitarist, you would think to yourself, "I want to learn how to play neoclassical guitar" and look up some music written in that style. You wouldn't just pluck the strings a lot and then realize that other people know that as neoclassical. Maybe you did, but I find it unlikely.

In D&D, you don't have the marvel of the internet or, depending on the setting, a regular library. Some techniques might be reserved for members of a secret organization. Since independent research wouldn't be practical for a lot of prestige classes (rewriting reality>playing guitar), I have either a teacher or some sort of test.

I understand and respect your reasoning, but when I DM, I do things differently.

Thurbane
2010-03-21, 08:33 PM
If they're trying for lengthy arguments at the game table and/or saying that some ridiculous thing should happen because it's technically allowed by the rules, I tell them no by rule zero, end of story.
Pretty much this. When I DM, I'm happy for a player to question a ruling they think I have made a mistake on, but if it's going to result in gameplay getting bogged down for an extended period, I use rule zero and will research the relevant rules before the next session.

If players are trying to abuse the rules to the point where it makes the game un-fun for other players, or myself, a simple but stern "no" usually suffices. I'm lucky in that I play in a fairly mature group, and none of us (myself included, when I'm a player) throw a pink fit if the DM overrules something for the sake of gameflow...

Darth Stabber
2010-03-21, 10:33 PM
I always thought that the social contract of rp'ing was implied. GM's have both rule zero and a vested interest in keeping the players happy, and the players have a vested interest in keeping the GM from going insane. The GM can stop running the game if he gets fed up, and players can drop, thus a certain level of decorum in these scenarios should be expected.

I've seen very little lawyering in my years, but when it does happen it usually turns out to be a legitimate misreading and corrected quickly, since I tend to RP with folks who are friends first and roleplayers second, and act as such. This may be why my experience may be different.

Also I have never seen rules lawyering outside of d20, though that may be due to the fact that the GM was always the one who knew the game best and was differed to accordingly.

sambo.
2010-03-21, 11:37 PM
This isn't paranioa, citizen. Please report to the nearest processing center.

this.

the "rules" in the books should be thought of as "guidelines" for teh DM rather than hard and fast Thou Shalt Do It This Way.

i've played with hardcore rules lawyers and it's almost never fun, either as a PC or as a DM.

Rule 1: The DM Is Always Right.
Rule 2: If The DM Is Wrong, Please Refer To Rule 1.

for a DM, "'coz I say so" is all the "rules" they need.

Boci
2010-03-22, 12:00 AM
this.

the "rules" in the books should be thought of as "guidelines" for teh DM rather than hard and fast Thou Shalt Do It This Way.

i've played with hardcore rules lawyers and it's almost never fun, either as a PC or as a DM.

Rule 1: The DM Is Always Right.
Rule 2: If The DM Is Wrong, Please Refer To Rule 1.

for a DM, "'coz I say so" is all the "rules" they need.

But the DM is only human and thus will make mistakes. He may have thought out a rule and not considered the consequences fully, or knee-ferk nerfed something that actually isn't OP. In such a case its only natural to voice your opinion.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-22, 10:12 AM
Also I have never seen rules lawyering outside of d20, though that may be due to the fact that the GM was always the one who knew the game best and was differed to accordingly.

That's probably the case. Non d20 games aren't immune to rules-lawyering by any means; one of my current players also plays Exalted, and he has a few good stories about his old Exalted group's rules lawyer.

The Big Dice
2010-03-22, 10:21 AM
It was a broad example, and your idea of "not knowing what they're trying to turn into" is INCREDIBLY subjective. Furthermore, I will contend and object to the narrow approach of requiring a teacher to my last dying breath, being both a self-taught neoclassical guitarist (yeah, that's sweep picking, 8 finger tapping, the works) and martial artist. You massively underestimate the ability of a person, particularly one supposedly far more intelligent than any RL human, to learn on their own.

EDIT : And to put this to bed once and for all, bloody PAZUZU only requires a 25, and can be done AT LEVEL FREAKING ONE. Need I say more?

I'm a self taught guitarist myelf, coming more from the Vai/Satriani/Hammet end of things that the Malmsteen/Moore/Batio end of the shred scale. That includes 3 octave legato runs, modal pentatonics and 8 finger tapping. And I can say categrically that the resources I had availlable to learn that stuff would classify as the "some other means" I mentioned. In fact I'd go as far as to say what's taken me 20 years to master I could have learned in less than half the time with a good teacher. But I digress.

The thing with rules lawyers is there's nothing wrong with telling the GM he made a mistake, if it's done with a little tact. Where rules lawyers often go wrong is they become a sort of heckler at the gaming table. "Because the rules say I can" isn't always a good enough answer, especially when the GM ask "How does your character know about that?" or "Where is your character getting that particular item from?"

To use a guitar analogy on the Pazuzu point, knowing in technical or descriptive terms the differences between a Jackson Soloist and an Ibanez RG isn't the same as being able to draw both instruments. Assuming you have the skill in technical drawing to do so accurately, of course. And then get the details right enough to be able to reproduce said instrument exactly to the point where someone who has both can't tell the original from the reproduction. You might have catalogs and magazines full of pictures of both, but until you've been to your local Guitar Center and seen one in the flesh, there are going to be things you won't realise about them.

And Polymorph is all about the detail.

Or it is to me, anyway. Otherwise you could be accidentally turning into either the wrong species, or worse, into a Chinese lion when you wanted to be an African lion.

There are valid reasons why many GMs reserve a sepcial kind of hatred for rules lawyers. The biggest one in my experience is simply how disruptive they can be at the gaming table. Nitpicking calls the GM makes, insisting on opening books to look up an obscure reference in the middle of their combat turn and pulling other players out of the immersion of the game by pointing out the framework that's holding it together. This kind of thing can be extremely frustrating and ruin the experience for everyone at the table.

Some players are quick to point out how a "bad GM" is spoiling their fun. And sometimes those players are right, but there's a sizeable minority of people I've gamed with who either don't know or don't care that they are spoiling the fun of other people at the table. And a subset of those is called rules lawyers.

Thurbane
2010-03-22, 08:16 PM
Some players are quick to point out how a "bad GM" is spoiling their fun. And sometimes those players are right, but there's a sizeable minority of people I've gamed with who either don't know or don't care that they are spoiling the fun of other people at the table. And a subset of those is called rules lawyers.
Excellent point.

In my quarter century of D&D, I have come accross a LOT more problem players than problem DMs. Generally, because if a DM is really that poor, the games tend to disintegrate, and players move on to other games.

With problem players, they can tend to stick around for an extended period, with people cutting them slack for being friends; or people thinking they are the only one having a problem with them.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-22, 08:28 PM
Rule 1: The DM Is Always Right.
Rule 2: If The DM Is Wrong, Please Refer To Rule 1.

for a DM, "'coz I say so" is all the "rules" they need.
If you're unwilling to listen to players' opinions or take their preferences into consideration, I wouldn't count on staying GM for long. The major check on game master tyranny is that you only get to be GM if a group of players is willing to let you.

taltamir
2010-03-22, 08:31 PM
1. "Cause I said so!" style DMs who make bad rules don't tend to have players for long.
2. Is it even rule lawyering to simply use a bunch of effects for their intended purposes as in the OPs example? that is... using various spells to unmake someone and make him non resurrectable... thats not rule lawyering at all, simply utilizing a core mechanic. If the DM doesn't like he can change it (just be consistent about it and ban all forms of "soul destroying effects")..
unmaking a soul with a spell designed to do exactly it is not more "rule lawyery" then killing someone with a sword to the gut.

sambo.
2010-03-22, 09:21 PM
If you're unwilling to listen to players' opinions or take their preferences into consideration, I wouldn't count on staying GM for long. The major check on game master tyranny is that you only get to be GM if a group of players is willing to let you.

it's not a question of "not listening to players".

there comes a time in every campaign i've ever played in when a DM has had to make a ruling on something that's not clearly defined in the RAW or is abuseable under RAW.

i've seen rules lawyers argue with the DM for hours about some persnickety point.

at such a time "coz i'm the DM and i say so" is a perfectly reasonable and rational response from the DM.

I'm a Paranoia player and GM from waaaaaaaaaay back. rules lawyering in that game is immediate grounds for summary execution of a clone for treason.

(knowledge of the rules is classified Ultraviolet, citizen. you are security clearance Orange. Knowledge of Ultraviolet classified material by someone of Orange security clearance is Treason. Treason is punishable by summary execution....... BLAM, BLAM, BLAM.)

Starbuck_II
2010-03-22, 09:37 PM
it's not a question of "not listening to players".

there comes a time in every campaign i've ever played in when a DM has had to make a ruling on something that's not clearly defined in the RAW or is abuseable under RAW.

i've seen rules lawyers argue with the DM for hours about some persnickety point.

at such a time "coz i'm the DM and i say so" is a perfectly reasonable and rational response from the DM.

I'm a Paranoia player and GM from waaaaaaaaaay back. rules lawyering in that game is immediate grounds for summary execution of a clone for treason.

(knowledge of the rules is classified Ultraviolet, citizen. you are security clearance Orange. Knowledge of Ultraviolet classified material by someone of Orange security clearance is Treason. Treason is punishable by summary execution....... BLAM, BLAM, BLAM.)

I note that Paranioa is a different game atmosphere than D&D though.

If the rules are unclear that is fine to houserule, but it better not be unclear only to DM. That is just stubbornness.

Grimtina
2010-03-22, 09:41 PM
I do not have rules lawyers in my groups. Just number slaves and rules gurus :smallsmile: Saves me from having to remember everything or look it up a lot. With all our house rules this is very helpful.