PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with a rule checker



Half-orc Bard
2011-01-09, 09:50 PM
I have a friend Jimmy who plays dnd with me and some other friends. Currently I'm running my first campaign, but Jimmy is being very annoying. Whenever I say anything that would give the players a challenge like keeping some bandits alive. He has to take 10, so not being the jerk DM everyone hates saying okay you take ten but they died I said Jimmy that would take 10 standard actions. He insists it is a move action. Less than the normal action. He then disregards what I say, and checks the book. He can't find anything about the time involved in taking 10, so he still says it's a move action. In the end the bandit dies. After that my other friends and I came up with the rule that he can't check the book more than 3 times, but this is not the ideal solution because it will lessen his fun, but the rule checking takes like half an hour of arguing with him, and the campaign wont go anywhere when half the session is arguing and no one else would have as much as if we had three hours of solid playing, so any suggestions?

tyckspoon
2011-01-09, 09:53 PM
..well, he *was* right, Take 10 doesn't take any extra time compared to rolling a check. Take 20 is the one that involves doing it over and over again until you get it just right.

Personally, I'd recommend the group gets some means of more easily looking up the relevant rules, especially when you're talking about things that are likely to come up quite often (like, for example, the difference between a Take 10 and a Take 20 attempt.) Either have a searchable SRD available at the table, or get a copy of the Rules Compendium and refer such questions to it- it's much better laid out.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-09, 09:54 PM
So...the only way he could suceed was taking 10 (which takes no time at all, it's the same time involved as the action - it just can't be done under stress or in combat), and you fiated him into automatic failure because of that? That's...not very fair.


For an actual solution - I go by the thirty second rule. If a ruling is disputed, the player has 30 seconds to argue and make their case, after which I make a ruling so the game continues depending on how convincing/knowledgable they sound compared to my own rules knowledge. At the end of the session, all disputed rules or calls are looked up and confirmed or denied, and the correct way to go is remembered for all future sessions without changing the outcome of this session.

Kamai
2011-01-09, 09:55 PM
The standard thing to do with this is to get an agreement with the players to stick with your rulings in play unless the result of the call is the difference between life and death for a character, and that rules can be discussed outside of the game, and if afterwards, they prove that you screwed up, make up for it somehow.

As a note, in both 3.5 and 4e, taking 10 is the same action as the skill. You can't take 10 in combat, and certain other stressful situations also do not allow taking 10. The one that takes longer is taking 20 (taking 20x as much time).

Urpriest
2011-01-09, 09:56 PM
Well first, pulling random annoying rules out of your ass like it taking ten times the normal time is silly. If you don't remember, admit that you don't remember, say that for now you'll treat it in some way and that you two can check it after the session. He gets to check eventually, you get to move on, he sounds like a jerk if he challenges you on it, you sound reasonable, everyone wins.

By the way, taking ten takes just as long as doing something normally, as it represents doing something without undue pressure. If you're under pressure you can't take ten unless you've got a class feature that lets you. Taking twenty is the rule that you were thinking of that takes twenty times the normal time.

Gray Mage
2011-01-09, 09:58 PM
I have a friend Jimmy who plays dnd with me and some other friends. Currently I'm running my first campaign, but Jimmy is being very annoying. Whenever I say anything that would give the players a challenge like keeping some bandits alive. He has to take 10, so not being the jerk DM everyone hates saying okay you take ten but they died I said Jimmy that would take 10 standard actions. He insists it is a move action. Less than the normal action. He then disregards what I say, and checks the book. He can't find anything about the time involved in taking 10, so he still says it's a move action. In the end the bandit dies. After that my other friends and I came up with the rule that he can't check the book more than 3 times, but this is not the ideal solution because it will lessen his fun, but the rule checking takes like half an hour of arguing with him, and the campaign wont go anywhere when half the session is arguing and no one else would have as much as if we had three hours of solid playing, so any suggestions?


As far as the taking 10 thing, it takes the same amount of time as if he had rolled. For your problem, I'd suggest having a good understanding of the rules, expecially basic ones like taking 10. Also, don't spend time arguing, take a quick look if it isn't in combat (or let someone else go first if it is) and if you don't find in a couple of minutes rule something until you have more time to look it further.

Techsmart
2011-01-09, 09:59 PM
Well, first off, I believe taking 10 takes an ammount of time normally necessary to complete the action. At the same time, taking 10 can only be done when the character is not being threatened (I.E. the bandit is throwing things at him and his party forces him to make a normal roll). With a rule-checker, I usually just approach them and say "I know most of the basic rules, but I don't always follow the rules to a point. If I say something is the rules and it contradicts the dmg, I will have to point you to rule zero." This usually works for me.

edit: mass ninja'd

Boci
2011-01-09, 10:04 PM
"I know most of the basic rules, but I don't always follow the rules to a point. If I say something is the rules and it contradicts the dmg, I will have to point you to rule zero." This usually works for me.

Wouldn't work for me. Players like to know the rules. If you have house rules which they can see, fine. But if any time you misremember the rules, your memory automatically becomes the rules via rule zero, I don't know many people who would be okay with that.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 10:32 PM
Wouldn't work for me. Players like to know the rules. If you have house rules which they can see, fine. But if any time you misremember the rules, your memory automatically becomes the rules via rule zero, I don't know many people who would be okay with that.

Really? You don't know any people who understand that you're human too, and sometimes forget things or misremember them?

Give them a chance (and a chance to change your mind on your rules decisions, of course).

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 10:43 PM
Really? You don't know any people who understand that you're human too, and sometimes forget things or misremember them?

Arbitrary capriciousness and an inability to admit that you're wrong are rather grating, yes.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 10:53 PM
Arbitrary capriciousness and an inability to admit that you're wrong are rather grating, yes.Might I point out:
(and a chance to change your mind on your rules decisions, of course).

Nevertheless, at some point the game has to go on. Since the DM is arbitrating the game, he (essentially) gets to come up with a rule if they can't decide, then move on (and check later, when there's time).

It does feel rather arbitrary, but when the game devolves into a 30-minute fight over the right rule, you've done something wrong.

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 10:56 PM
It does feel rather arbitrary, but when the game devolves into a 30-minute fight over the right rule, you've done something wrong.

It's even more arbitrary if they refuse to check up on what was disputed after the game and merely want to find a way to gag or punish the person who called them on their capriciousness.

Misremembering something isn't a rules decision until you go ahead with it, and being unable to be consistent by just sticking with one way of doing it is even worse.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 11:00 PM
It's even more arbitrary if they refuse to check up on what was disputed after the game and merely want to find a way to gag or punish the person who called them on their capriciousness.

Yeah, well, some people are jerks.

Don't play with people who are jerks. Really, why would you hang out with people that want to hurt, gag, or punish you anyway? (Assuming, of course, that this is an option... I know for some people it isn't an option.)

EDIT: I've been edit-ninja'd!


Misremembering something isn't a rules decision until you go ahead with it, and being unable to be consistent by just sticking with one way of doing it is even worse.So do one of these:

go by the thirty second rule. If a ruling is disputed, the player has 30 seconds to argue and make their case, after which I make a ruling so the game continues depending on how convincing/knowledgable they sound compared to my own rules knowledge. At the end of the session, all disputed rules or calls are looked up and confirmed or denied, and the correct way to go is remembered for all future sessions without changing the outcome of this session.

get an agreement with the players to stick with your rulings in play unless the result of the call is the difference between life and death for a character, and that rules can be discussed outside of the game, and if afterwards, they prove that you screwed up, make up for it somehow.

admit that you don't remember, say that for now you'll treat it in some way and that you two can check it after the session. He gets to check eventually, you get to move on, he sounds like a jerk if he challenges you on it, you sound reasonable, everyone wins.

don't spend time arguing, take a quick look if it isn't in combat (or let someone else go first if it is) and if you don't find in a couple of minutes rule something until you have more time to look it further.
And then make a note of the final result in your DM notebook (you were keeping one of those, right?).

Urpriest
2011-01-09, 11:02 PM
Really, why would you hang out with people that want to hurt, gag, or punish you anyway?

...kinky reasons?

Ok, quitting the thread now.

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 11:06 PM
Yeah, well, some people are jerks.

Don't play with people who are jerks. Really, why would you hang out with people that want to hurt, gag, or punish you anyway? (Assuming, of course, that this is an option... I know for some people it isn't an option.)

*points at the OP and his reason for coming here*

It's not simply a matter of jerkishness. There's also the matter of getting annoyed at letting something get out of hand.

And this isn't about me or the games I play in, it's about how annoying it is when someone's being inconsistent and doesn't recognize that there are ways of dealing with all of this without placing the blame squarely on others.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-09, 11:18 PM
This is one of these cases where Jimmy is right, and Half-orc Bard is wrong regarding the time it takes for taking 10, without declaring it to be a house-rule that anybody should know beforehand. Saying that for now, taking 10 is not allowed would have been better than arguing... If Jimmy then finds out that he's been right all along (although I guess that if it's a heal check, it would take a standard action, not a move action), that will only lead to further problems at the gaming table. That's when apologizing and talking this out in a calm and resolved manner is the best course of action.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 11:27 PM
*points at the OP and his reason for coming here*

It's not simply a matter of jerkishness. There's also the matter of getting annoyed at letting something get out of hand. At some point, the fact that it got out of hand is jerkishness. If the player can't find anything in the books (whether now or later), the DM's decision should be accepted as correct, at least for the time being. If it's not, somebody can bring it up, with proof.

Everybody in the game needs to work together if the game's going to work at all. Ideally, everybody's having fun. If somebody's not, and this applies to every situation, it falls upon everybody to make it better, even if the solution is to kick the problem out.


And this isn't about me or the games I play in, it's about how annoying it is when someone's being inconsistent and doesn't recognize that there are ways of dealing with all of this without placing the blame squarely on others.

You are absolutely right. I... can't think of anything else to say, actually.

Aside from the fact that I feel like textbook Lawful Good right now... maybe a few Deathwatch spells can fix that... :smallamused:

Coidzor
2011-01-09, 11:35 PM
It tends to mutually spiral out of hand, sorry. Much like the issue IRL being discussed it's better after taking a step back and looking at how silly one was acting x.x

Thankfully as you and others have pointed out, there are a number of good ways to work things out and establish a framework for the future.

Siosilvar
2011-01-09, 11:38 PM
It tends to mutually spiral out of hand, sorry. Much like the issue IRL being discussed it's better after taking a step back and looking at how silly one was acting x.x

Thankfully as you and others have pointed out, there are a number of good ways to work things out and establish a framework for the future.

Heh, so does everything.

...

Wow, I'm also really cynical today.

Anyway, most of the solutions seem to boil down to the same things:
Own up. Admit that you don't know what the actual rule is.
If you can't find the rule in a reasonable amount of time, make a replacement that sort of works.
Find the real rule later. Pick which one the group likes and make a note of it (house rules list or DM notes).

sambo.
2011-01-09, 11:50 PM
before you panic about this, i should point out that with a new DM and in a new campaign, there is likely to be a fair bit of "rule checking" early on in proceedings.

players want an idea of where their DM stands on certain rules and ingame mechanics.

now, if it's an ongoing thing where every little thing needs to be checked, then you need to have a little chat with friend Jimmy.

there's a big difference between a rule-checker (who wants to find out their DMs personal proclivities) and a rule-nazi (a moron who tries to argue everything and doesn't understand Rule One (The DM Is Always Right) or Rule Two (If The DM Is Wrong Refer To Rule One).

Thurbane
2011-01-10, 12:52 AM
before you panic about this, i should point out that with a new DM and in a new campaign, there is likely to be a fair bit of "rule checking" early on in proceedings.
I don't want to dishearten you, but my group that's been playing 3.5 for close to 5 years still routinely bog down play by cracking open a rulebook to check specifics. It really gets our of control, sometimes. 3.X lends itself to this kind of thing, unfortunately.

We have been making efforts to avoid this - if it's a relatively minor action, we try to let the DM handwave a rule, and then check up the actual rules next time we have a break, or between games, for future reference.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-10, 06:24 AM
You're not going to be able to remember all the rules. I've got an excellent memory, but it's not adequate to retain everything on the thousands of pages of D&D books in my bookcase. I keep up with the "Simple Q&A" thread mostly so I'll have ready answers to more of the questions that might come up in my gaming sessions. And I still end up cracking open the rule books regularly in games.

Combat in D&D 3.5 is lengthy, because the designers put a lot of effort into game options there. I find it's better to stop for 5 minutes to look up a rule for one of those options rather than find out that you've just spent 2 hours in a battle and would have had different results if you'd known what you were doing. :smallmad: