Throwing off the rules lawyer

[Greyfeld85]

I have a player in my game that loves quoting RAW at me any time I make a call that he doesn't believe adheres to the rules. This is usually something like making a fiat ruling based on a maneuver not covered in the SRD, which I do my best to rule fairly. But no matter what I do or say, he always has to turn it into an argument, and take any explanation I give for my calls to get on his soap box.

Needless to say, this is annoying the crap out of me.

So, for anybody who has dealt with this sort of player before, do you have any "curve balls" in your back pocket that throws them off without violating RAW? I'd just like one or two encounters I can throw at him to show him he doesn't know everything to make him shut up.

Edit: Yes, I've talked to my player. His reaction to, "My rulings are final," is to get passive-aggressively butthurt and lecture me on how "good DMs" run their games.

Editx2: This is a PBP game, in case that matters.

[Aegis013]

Have you tried talking to him outside of the game?

[Cor1]

If you want the player to go "Oh crap no he didn't", ambush him with an Aleax or something.

[Lateral]

Rule zero. You're the DM, what you say goes, and if you need to bend the rules in order to create a fair, fun game, then that's the end of it. Explain this to him.

[Lostbutseeking]

Really you are best off just sitting down and talking to him outside the game sometime. Explain that Rules As Written are often very badly written - be it that they make no sense or just lack any remote semblace of balance.

Consider 2 very basic examples.

Drow warblade - "The sun is affecting me" - Iron Heart Surge - the sun ends.
You now migrate to the World of Darkness rules because some ass just turned off the lights.

Or the Versatile Spellcaster Elven Generalist Domain Wizard, because level 9 spells at ECL6 is fair and balanced!

[Amidus Drexel]

Just set him up against prestige classes with easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret RAW, or material he hasn't seen before (although i gather by your post that he's probably read a good deal of stuff).

Monsters with class levels. Nobody expects this.

Mystic Theruges. What's better than Tier 1? Tier 1/Tier 1/PrC both.

Monsters with Mystic Theruge levels. :smallbiggrin:

[Urpriest]

In general, the best way to deal with things is to say that for now we'll deal with it according to DM's ruling, and you can discuss RAW with him after the session.

[Shadowknight12]

Don't solve OOC issues with IC resources. Resist the biological imperative to establish dominance over him; you are a civilised, rational human being, and it would benefit you in the long term to act as much like one as possible. Acting like mature adults is the best way to handle this sort of thing. :smallsmile:

[Greyfeld85]

/facepalm

Obviously, I can't make a thread like this without a half dozen people automatically assuming I haven't tried the very basic approach of actually talking to my players.

OP edited to reflect the fact that I'm not a moron.

[Shadowknight12]

/facepalm

Obviously, I can't make a thread like this without a half dozen people automatically assuming I haven't tried the very basic approach of actually talking to my players.

OP edited to reflect the fact that I'm not a moron.

Clearly, the answer is to stop playing with him. Assuming you are explaining everything in a calm, adult manner and you have not aggravated him in the slightest (I must give you the benefit of the doubt, after all), then clearly he has no consideration for you or the game, and he's detrimental to your fun. "Teaching him a lesson" will not solve anything. If you end up both being childish (not saying that you are, merely explaining that if that's the case), you'll both end up trying to one-up each other and the game will go to hell.

[Lostbutseeking]

Pointing him to the door is generally the next step.

Anything else just leads to an armsrace (Hi Pun-Pun), a TPK or both.

[Greyfeld85]

Just set him up against prestige classes with easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret RAW, or material he hasn't seen before (although i gather by your post that he's probably read a good deal of stuff).

Monsters with class levels. Nobody expects this.

Mystic Theruges. What's better than Tier 1? Tier 1/Tier 1/PrC both.

Monsters with Mystic Theruge levels. :smallbiggrin:

lol I thought about that. I told one of my co-GMs that I might roll up a half-dragon raptoran warblade in leading a group of rogue/monk/master thrower kobold ninjas xD

[nedz]

Set an adventure into the Far Realms - nobody knows how the rules work there.

[killem2]

Are these session held at your home?

If so I'd kindly ask him to leave.

That's just being rude and disruptive to the other players.

[Lateral]

/facepalm

Obviously, I can't make a thread like this without a half dozen people automatically assuming I haven't tried the very basic approach of actually talking to my players.

Hey, not everyone thinks to try the obvious thing. It's the 'have you turned it off and on again' effect.

[Greyfeld85]

Clearly, the answer is to stop playing with him. Assuming you are explaining everything in a calm, adult manner and you have not aggravated him in the slightest (I must give you the benefit of the doubt, after all), then clearly he has no consideration for you or the game, and he's detrimental to your fun. "Teaching him a lesson" will not solve anything. If you end up both being childish (not saying that you are, merely explaining that if that's the case), you'll both end up trying to one-up each other and the game will go to hell.

I've already had to replace 3 players in this game (1 never accepted the initial invite, 1 turned into an ego-centric douchebag that left of his own accord after the rest of the players basically told him such, and the third player had RL get in the way and had to duck out), so I'm trying to avoid having to replace another player so soon.

Thing is, he doesn't mean anything by it. He just thinks in terms of RAW, and can't (or refuses to) wrap his mind around anything that isn't explicitly stated in the books. Hell, the entire group had a long (and ultimately fruitless) discussion on the meta-construct of class names and how they differ from in-character identities. He kept coming back to, "But the PHB says that these classes are in-character knowledge!!" and the discussion repeatedly went over his head.

[doko239]

There's unfortunately no good way to deal with a rules lawyer. The best thing to do to avoid such a situation is to sit everyone down BEFORE the game begins and explain Rule Zero to everyone, and invite those that dislike it to leave.

[Fatebreaker]

I have a player in my game that loves quoting RAW at me any time I make a call that he doesn't believe adheres to the rules. This is usually something like making a fiat ruling based on a maneuver not covered in the SRD, which I do my best to rule fairly. But no matter what I do or say, he always has to turn it into an argument, and take any explanation I give for my calls to get on his soap box.

Needless to say, this is annoying the crap out of me.

So, for anybody who has dealt with this sort of player before, do you have any "curve balls" in your back pocket that throws them off without violating RAW? I'd just like one or two encounters I can throw at him to show him he doesn't know everything to make him shut up.

Sure. By RAW, whatever the DM says, goes.

Under the Adjudicating section on page 6 of the 3.5 DMG, it even says, "You are the final arbiter of the rules. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Done.

More thoughts:
That said, if you're looking to use weird-but-legal RAW to get him to "shut up," I strongly recommend you not do that. First off, that involves using those weird-but-legal interactions of RAW in your game, such as healing a dying character by drowning them. That makes it (and other weird-RAW examples) "real" at your table, and a viable option in the future. It hurts the players who trust you to be a fair arbiter at your table. And it actually rewards the RAW player by reinforcing his behavior. Rather than shutting him down, it will only show him up. Now it's an arms race.

You do not want an arms race. You don't need one. The losers will be your other, non-problem players. Do not ruin the fun of your good players just to "win" against a bad player.

But, if you really want to use weird-RAW, yeah, do the "drowning heals me!" one. It's so wildly stupid that if he continues to support slavish adherence to RAW, then you don't want to play with this guy anymore anyway.

[Flickerdart]

More thoughts:
That said, if you're looking to use weird-but-legal RAW to get him to "shut up," I strongly recommend you not do that. First off, that involves using those weird-but-legal interactions of RAW in your game, such as healing a dying character by drowning them. That makes it (and other weird-RAW examples) "real" at your table, and a viable option in the future. It hurts the players who trust you to be a fair arbiter at your table. And it actually rewards the RAW player by reinforcing his behavior. Rather than shutting him down, it will only show him up. Now it's an arms race.

You do not want an arms race. You don't need one. The losers will be your other, non-problem players. Do not ruin the fun of your good players just to "win" against a bad player.

But, if you really want to use weird-RAW, yeah, do the "drowning heals me!" one. It's so wildly stupid that if he continues to support slavish adherence to RAW, then you don't want to play with this guy anymore anyway.
Healing by drowning is stupid, because you can never stop drowning once you start.

[Red_Dog]

Well tbh, the matter of DM rule Vs RAW is a delicate matter.

Of course, it is YOUR game and as a DM I would think you are putting 10k% more effort in it than all the players combined. So the simple bottom line would be to say =>

"My game WILL contain, house rulings and homebrew things on case by case bases. Deal with it, or don't. No one is chaining you to furniture and forcing you to play it. KthxBye.".

That being said...

===============================================>

1st point. DM should abide by most RAW[unless they are flat out dumb[Que drow warblade, ANY wizard/rest of T1 tapdancng brigade, Self resetting traps, DIPLOMANCY, Peasant Railguns, Orbital Basketweaving, Candle of Invocation, Bluff-singing and etc. etc. etc.]] so the players know what to expect at least in general. Because finding out spontaneously that your deity is feeling queezy and your divine spell fizzled without a warning is a bad practice. Or your something just stopped working because of a fiat. Or something along those lines. Its fine to do this with good reason[story, established setting, etc.] but not just out of spite or if you run out of ideas or misjudged the encounter.
*Take it or leave it. but if you made encounter too easy by accident, just give it to players. Its fine if they win on round one due to some thing you totally forgot. Next time you'll fix it, don't worry about it too much, its a game after all ^^*

2nd point. DM that specified few rules at the start[modded CR system, altered diplomacy rules, massive damage rules, etc.] will clear up a lot of arguments right off the bat and will only have deal with some very specific rules.

Finally, 3rd point, as a DM, you have quite a bit of room to work with. If you want to put a player in his place, you can accomplish this with a re-feated, class level sporting monster encounter. Unassociated class levels only raise CR by 0.5 and you can re-build your monster with right feats as long as you keep in line with character building guidelines[feat per 3 levels, skill points according to HD, and etc.]. A Young Dragon-wizard[or druid/cleric] is one of the best tricks in your sleeve as its powerful, simple and likely to happen ^^.

Overall, to me, the only big thing you have to worry about is fluff shenanigans. As in, if players collectively call BS on a firegiant tribe in a middle of Ice-covered mountains or something fluff-unlikely. And even that can be hand-wave, if you cleverly prep your story = ]

===============================================>

Good Luck! ^^

[Shadowknight12]

I've already had to replace 3 players in this game (1 never accepted the initial invite, 1 turned into an ego-centric douchebag that left of his own accord after the rest of the players basically told him such, and the third player had RL get in the way and had to duck out), so I'm trying to avoid having to replace another player so soon.

Thing is, he doesn't mean anything by it. He just thinks in terms of RAW, and can't (or refuses to) wrap his mind around anything that isn't explicitly stated in the books. Hell, the entire group had a long (and ultimately fruitless) discussion on the meta-construct of class names and how they differ from in-character identities. He kept coming back to, "But the PHB says that these classes are in-character knowledge!!" and the discussion repeatedly went over his head.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to keep suggesting to get rid of him. What you're telling me smells of a deeper, unbridgeable difference between him and the rest of the group. Trying to patch a sinking boat because you've paid for it is really just Sunken Cost Fallacy. You feel like you have to "fix" this issue because you've already invested so much in it and you can't see it's detrimental for the game.

In this case, that guy's rules-lawyering is not something that's going to go away with a clever demonstration. It's rooted on a fundamentally different comprehension of the game, which I'm afraid it's not up to you to change. He has to come to the realisation on his own (or not, and think like that for the rest of his life).

Just replace him. It's a PbP game. It won't be the first or the last of its kind to re-recruit for replacements after it's already begun.

[NM020110]

I believe that there was a rule for this in the DMG somewhere...ah, yes, page 6.



Adjudicating:
When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.


Emphasis added.



The rules may say that X is so. They also say that you have the authority to make X not so. If the player chooses to ignore this, then simply inform them that they appear to be using a different rule set than you are, and that complications may result in unfavorable outcomes for them.

[Fatebreaker]

Healing by drowning is stupid, because you can never stop drowning once you start.

There are a lot of reasons why healing by drowning is stupid.

[Red_Dog]

Fatebreaker=>

I am still just a fan of making my pick from T1 Tapdancing brigade and than play him/her like you mean it[Tippy-style] for just ONE session. If I really want a player in his place, or for players to stop arguing RAW, playing a PHB Wizard on any level solves this purpose. I won't do it for more than a session as that does, as you said, makes an arms race. I'd rather cancel the game if the arm race begins at any significant level.

[Akal Saris]

Just because he's the final arbiter doesn't mean a player won't complain about it and take up unnecessary time though.

I have a similar PC in one of my games, and I find that having the other players tell the PC to stop wasting their time by rules-lawyering every call has helped cut down on his complaints a lot. And sometimes if I don't think the situation really matters (last round of combat, etc), I simply accept his argument and move on with the game.

[Greyfeld85]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to keep suggesting to get rid of him. What you're telling me smells of a deeper, unbridgeable difference between him and the rest of the group. Trying to patch a sinking boat because you've paid for it is really just Sunken Cost Fallacy. You feel like you have to "fix" this issue because you've already invested so much in it and you can't see it's detrimental for the game.

In this case, that guy's rules-lawyering is not something that's going to go away with a clever demonstration. It's rooted on a fundamentally different comprehension of the game, which I'm afraid it's not up to you to change. He has to come to the realisation on his own (or not, and think like that for the rest of his life).

Just replace him. It's a PbP game. It won't be the first or the last of its kind to re-recruit for replacements after it's already begun.

The fact that we've replaced 3 players already isn't the only reason. Currently, the players are in an dungeon that requires 5 characters to complete. Not only that, but they're literally two rooms away from finishing the area, and I don't want to have to retcon another character into the dungeon just to finish it up, or run one of them as an NPC.

That aside, this player isn't a bad guy. He's not a jerk and he's not intentionally trying to get under my skin. So I've taken this as an opportunity to try to become more patient, rather than just letting my (notoriously short) temper lash out.

But I'd still like to do a "gotcha" encounter on him. Nothing broken or silly, just a little, "I don't need to use everything straight out of the book," sort of encounter.

[Shadowknight12]

The fact that we've replaced 3 players already isn't the only reason. Currently, the players are in an dungeon that requires 5 characters to complete. Not only that, but they're literally two rooms away from finishing the area, and I don't want to have to retcon another character into the dungeon just to finish it up, or run one of them as an NPC.

Not only that, but this player isn't a bad guy. He's not a jerk and he's not intentionally trying to get under my skin. So I've taken this as an opportunity to try to become more patient, rather than just letting my (notoriously short) temper lash out.

Well, Option A is "just grit your teeth until they finish the dungeon, then replace him."

Option B is shooting him a PM asking him if he's willing to open his mind to seeing things another way, because you understand that he's not a jerk or a bad person, but you were seriously considering replacing him once the dungeon's over. That way, you place the decision on his shoulders. He can choose to listen and attempt to change, or he can choose to leave and save you a lot of wasted time and effort doing something that won't have any results. Remember that you cannot change someone's point of view against their will. They have to be willing to listen and reconsider their own perspectives.

[nedz]

The fact that we've replaced 3 players already isn't the only reason. Currently, the players are in an dungeon that requires 5 characters to complete. Not only that, but they're literally two rooms away from finishing the area, and I don't want to have to retcon another character into the dungeon just to finish it up, or run one of them as an NPC.

That aside, this player isn't a bad guy. He's not a jerk and he's not intentionally trying to get under my skin. So I've taken this as an opportunity to try to become more patient, rather than just letting my (notoriously short) temper lash out.

But I'd still like to do a "gotcha" encounter on him. Nothing broken or silly, just a little, "I don't need to use everything straight out of the book," sort of encounter.

Simple: just make sure that his character's head ends up in a bucket of water and ask him what he thinks RAW makes of this situation. Walk him through the absurdity until he gets the message. Get him to agree that its silly for his character to die because of RAW. Don't kill his character, unless he insists.

[Curmudgeon]

What works for me is superior knowledge of the rules. You're in the judge's seat, and you're supposed to be prepared for all the legal challenges. If you can quote the RAW to justify all your rulings you'll short-circuit arguments. The problem is that it took me quite a few years to acquire that amount of D&D knowledge, and you probably don't have the time in your current game.

Failing that RAW knowledge authority you need to convince your player that you've got some other form of authority that he'll respect. The most obvious approach here is that of the storyteller. Sit down with him and tell him that, even if you don't know all the rules as well as you'd like, you have a job to do to keep the game progressing. If the game keeps pausing for rules discussions you're not doing the storyteller job. Ask him to help you out ─ for the sake of providing entertainment to all those involved ─ by holding most of the rules discussions between game sessions.

Now, if you want him to cooperate you'll need to hold up your end of the bargain. That means devoting serious consideration to the rules issues he brings up, if that can be done outside of game time. Don't enter into a compact if you're not going to follow through. Mutual respect is key.

[Greyfeld85]

What works for me is superior knowledge of the rules. You're in the judge's seat, and you're supposed to be prepared for all the legal challenges. If you can quote the RAW to justify all your rulings you'll short-circuit arguments. The problem is that it took me quite a few years to acquire that amount of D&D knowledge, and you probably don't have the time in your current game.

The problem mostly appears for things that aren't explicitly covered in the rules.

For example, one of the characters is hiding behind a wall. Given the position of the enemies, this would normally grant a +8 AC bonus for superior cover. However, the character is leaning out from the wall to fire off projectiles every round, and the enemies are readying actions to attack anything that appears from behind that wall.

The rules don't touch on this situation. Not only is this attack maneuver not covered in any rulebook, but the amount of cover granted during it isn't covered either. So, I made a ruling that they could take their ranged attacks with no to-hit penalty, but they only received a +2 AC bonus from their cover while attacking.

Which, evidently, wasn't good enough for this player, who firmly believes that the granted AC bonus from cover should only be the +8 superior cover or the +4 regular cover. Even after I explained my reasoning for the ruling, he kept fighting me about it until I told him that it was my final decision, at which point he got all passive-aggressive on me.

That's just the most recent situation.

[Red_Dog]

Greyfeld85=>

I am pretty sure this explains your situation to the letter.

Directly from srd20

Varying Degrees of Cover

In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

In this situation it seems that there is a RAW answer which is fairly flexible.
*I mean unless a player is using Shot on the Run to move out of the wall and behind another and the enemy is readied action to shoot he won't get ANY cover, otherwise, it seem that he can lean quickly and take his one put-shot*


If as a DM, you feel strongly that this situation must provide 2AC only[perhaps these enemies train a lot at THIS task as they encountered it too much?] than, I guess thats simple use of the above rule.

I personally wouldn't make a fuss over a situation 2 point difference in AC [especially when I am somewhat sure that you can't sneak attack in this manner, unless you are sniping]. But if that makes such a big difference, I guess you can just use this rule above to make it AC+2 just as easy as you would make it AC+8 ^^

[Curmudgeon]

The problem mostly appears for things that aren't explicitly covered in the rules.

.... So, I made a ruling that they could take their ranged attacks with no to-hit penalty, but they only received a +2 AC bonus from their cover while attacking.
It looks like you've created the problem here by trying to tweak the rules on the fly, and your player is blameless. D&D isn't a highly simulationist game; the rules intentionally don't touch on such situations as you've described, or shots to particular parts of the body, or wear and tear on equipment, or many other "real" considerations. The easy approach would be to just average that combination (good cover when not firing/poor cover when firing) and call it ordinary cover. You'll stay within the rules, and you'll also stay consistent with the limitations of the system. Trying to add realism could possibly add some interest to the game for you, but you need to ask yourself what you're really accomplishing when you do so. Is it going to make the game more fun if you change the rules to model situations better? Or is the added complexity going to slow down the story of the encounter so it's tedious?

Your real problem is that you're jerking your players around. As a general principal, don't introduce new rules while the game is already underway. House rules should be presented to players before any game in which they might occur. Players come to the table expecting they know how the game works, and that they understand how to combine the way they built their PC with the way they play it. But a rules change after the fact can (and usually will) lead to player resentment because you're invalidating their understanding of the game. Since you're planning the encounters ahead of time it's your job to decide on the enemy tactics and know the rules issues involved. If you think things through you should be able to determine the best fit to the existing RAW, and shouldn't need any in-game rules tweaks. Don't jerk players around because you're not prepared.

[rweird]

I think the rules cover your example perfectly well. It gives cover. You can draw a line to his square from the enemy if you attack, however, the enemy can't draw a line to all corners of the his square. If they lean out and shoot, it would only be cover, unless they fully five foot step in which they couldn't have cover.

He pointing this out would be better than arguing, if he knew that. If it is issues like this, I don't see why you need to change preexisting rules, if he knows the rules, he could point them out to help if you don't know the rules as well as him. Asking him about the rules before you make a ruling may be a better use of your time, if he can find it, and it isn't like drowning heal/no way to stop, then use it. It lets him feel as if the rules are followed, and you can have someone help you find the rules. If it is something not covered, it don't know what sort of rule he'd quote to cover it.

I'm not sure if my reply is true in general, or just in this example.

EDIT: Ninja's and Swordsage's abound.

[Demons_eye]

It looks like you've created the problem here by trying to tweak the rules on the fly, and your player is blameless. D&D isn't a highly simulationist game; the rules intentionally don't touch on such situations as you've described, or shots to particular parts of the body, or wear and tear on equipment, or many other "real" considerations. The easy approach would be to just average that combination (good cover when not firing/poor cover when firing) and call it ordinary cover. You'll stay within the rules, and you'll also stay consistent with the limitations of the system. Trying to add realism could possibly add some interest to the game for you, but you need to ask yourself what you're really accomplishing when you do so. Is it going to make the game more fun if you change the rules to model situations better? Or is the added complexity going to slow down the story of the encounter so it's tedious?

Your real problem is that you're jerking your players around. As a general principal, don't introduce new rules while the game is already underway. House rules should be presented to players before any game in which they might occur. Players come to the table expecting they know how the game works, and that they understand how to combine the way they built their PC with the way they play it. But a rules change after the fact can (and usually will) lead to player resentment because you're invalidating their understanding of the game. Since you're planning the encounters ahead of time it's your job to decide on the enemy tactics and know the rules issues involved. If you think things through you should be able to determine the best fit to the existing RAW, and shouldn't need any in-game rules tweaks. Don't jerk players around because you're not prepared.

You are really taking that too far. Not everyone has a periodic knowledge of the rules and the rules we have are vague. If they were not vague we would not need a F.A.Q. to help people understand them.

He was not jerking players around and to say that and called him unprepared is really on edge of insulting.

[Voyager_I]

Don't try to resolve this by trying to show up you're player. That's setting the groundwork for an adversarial relationship, which is likely to make the problem worse in the long run. It's also childish. You're the DM; the entire world exists by your will. You design an encounter to beat your party whenever the hell you want, and you will prove very little by doing it.

In this case, you're also partly to blame, as Curmudgeon said, for not being prepared for these situations in the first place. Right now, it sounds like the player is concerned that your rules knowledge is unreliable and unpredictable rulings are making it difficult for him to make use of strategies.

[Curmudgeon]

He was not jerking players around and to say that and called him unprepared is really on edge of insulting.
Here's what Dungeon Master's Guide II says about house rules (on page 80):
Other rules changes should be made carefully, for reasons you make clear to the players. Include in your campaign pack a brief justification for each rules change. Distinguish between changes meant to evoke specific details of your world, and those that simply suit your own tastes or desire to tinker with the rules. "Jerking players around" is my shorthand for failing to follow that procedure: changing the rules while the game is underway, rather than giving the players advance notice of differences from the standard rules. (Jerking = changing course in a sudden, quick way. Jerk in physics is defined as the change in acceleration over time.)

Not having thought through the encounter ahead of time, resulting in on-the-fly rules alterations, means the DM was actually unprepared. Here's another quote from DMGII (page 32):
Good preparation away from the table improves your performance at it. It's sound advice.

[Greyfeld85]

You are really taking that too far. Not everyone has a periodic knowledge of the rules and the rules we have are vague. If they were not vague we would not need a F.A.Q. to help people understand them.

He was not jerking players around and to say that and called him unprepared is really on edge of insulting.

I'd like to point out that this is also my first time DMing. Ever. So yeah, I'm not prepared with extensive notes for every single situation which isn't explicitly covered by the SRD.

That said, I didn't actually tell the players that they were only being granted +2 AC from cover on this maneuver. I simply did some research through google, found nothing concrete, then made a gut call and input the numbers into my calculations when making the attack rolls. It was when one of the enemies ended up with a 19 attack roll (natural 16 + 3 attack bonus) that he got all riled up about the fact that the attack actually hit.

The player who took the attack has an AC of 12 at the moment. The rules lawyer in question started rambling off numbers at me, telling me that due to soft cover (friendly between himself and the target) and the +4 from cover, the attack should have missed.

This was the point that I had to tell them about the numbers I was crunching, and how the entire argument came up to begin with. In my mind, a character shooting from behind a wall has to forego most of his cover in order to get a proper aim on his target. This action isn't covered in the SRD, so I had to make my own call.

Frankly, I would have preferred to keep the info to myself. But I figured that the characters themselves would have a general guage of how much cover they're getting from the wall, so it was fine to tell them their AC bonus I was granting them. I didn't realize it was going to turn into such a big god damn deal.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly which info the players should and shouldn't have, so it's a little rough. And I'm not saying that I'm perfect, because I definitely have made mistakes. But when I make a ruling, it would be nice to not have to fight tooth and nail to get one of my players to stop arguing with me about it.

[Greyfeld85]

Here's what Dungeon Master's Guide II says about house rules (on page 80): "Jerking players around" is my shorthand for failing to follow that procedure: changing the rules while the game is underway, rather than giving the players advance notice of differences from the standard rules. (Jerking = changing course in a sudden, quick way. Jerk in physics is defined as the change in acceleration over time.)

Not having thought through the encounter ahead of time, resulting in on-the-fly rules alterations, means the DM was actually unprepared. Here's another quote from DMGII (page 32): It's sound advice.

If you believe that "good DMs" are never ever caught unprepared and have to make rulings on the fly, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd like to point out that this is also my first time DMing. Ever. So yeah, I'm not prepared with extensive notes for every single situation which isn't explicitly covered by the SRD.
OK, so you're making rookie mistakes. One helpful principle when you don't actually know what you're doing: admit it. Encourage players with better rules knowledge than you to help you out. Don't try to reinvent the wheel (the rules of the game). Stick to what's in the RAW whenever possible. And if you don't see how it's possible, take a clue from a knowledgeable player. Use their knowledge to get you back to the RAW.


If you believe that "good DMs" are never ever caught unprepared and have to make rulings on the fly, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I wasn't saying that at all. However, the DM creates the details of the world and the NPCs in it. If you create the terrain, and the enemies using that terrain to their advantage, being prepared about the game mechanics involved with those enemies using that terrain is entirely within your capabilities. There are plenty of PC actions that will leave even experienced DMs nonplussed. But the NPCs shouldn't ever catch the DM unprepared.

[Greyfeld85]

OK, so you're making rookie mistakes. One helpful principle when you don't actually know what you're doing: admit it. Encourage players with better rules knowledge than you to help you out. Don't try to reinvent the wheel (the rules of the game). Stick to what's in the RAW whenever possible. And if you don't see how it's possible, take a clue from a knowledgeable player. Use their knowledge to get you back to the RAW.

I'm not retarded, I know the rules. I've been playing 3.5e for 8 years. I've just never been a DM before, so I'm finding that I have to fiat a number of rulings that aren't expressly spelled out in the SRD/PHB/etc that I never really considered before. Having another rules lawyer telling me that I'm doing it wrong and should be applying rule X when I've already considered rule X and decided it didn't fit the situation is not helping matters.

[Sutremaine]

But I figured that the characters themselves would have a general guage of how much cover they're getting from the wall
Very general, if they're off by two points of AC.

I think you're both overreacting and putting each other on the defensive.

[Greyfeld85]

Very general, if they're off by two points of AC.

I think you're both overreacting and putting each other on the defensive.

My problem isn't that he's questioning my rulings. It's that when I give him an answer, he won't shut up about it.

This, fortunately, doesn't slow down the game, because I have private threads set up for each player for private discussions. But it does drive me batty. There's only so much of that crap I can put up with before I want to kick him in the head.

[JKTrickster]

I think the animosity is because often times your quick rules changes that "make sense" to you (such as losing some AC when you attack from behind a wall) come at expense to the players. Even if it is just one player, he might not be a rules lawyer as much as speaking out against a "tyranny DM".

I'm not saying that's what you are doing, I'm saying that's what it might look like to him/her. The player may believe that you are "nerfing" the characters through your rules changes. Most players do not like DMs who arbitrarily nerf their characters without any warning, reason, or justification. You may feel that it is just and fair but they may not. After all, it isn't in the rules so it wasn't agreed to everyone beforehand. And why would they ever agree to a nerf?

I'm sure that as a veteran player, you can understand the feeling at least a little bit. The player may be frustrated because he/she might fear that you are making too many personal calls, and that eventually it will be at his/her expense.

I think this is a big part of it. The player is afraid that you, the DM, may be using "houserules" to mean "nerfing the players when I feel appropriate".

You should reassure him that this is not the case, but it is kind of hard. After all, it sounds like you're trying to add "realism" to the game and those type of houserules normally only make it more difficult for players, not easier for them.

EDIT:

In short, if you makes house rules that nerf characters, there may be some push back. That is natural.

This player seems to fear that you will do this often.

From the previous example, he may have been especially angry that you withheld information from them.

Some players do not believe you should withhold ANY information that pertains to their characters. That change in AC bonus? They should have known that without asking. A penalty to attack because of X scenario? Same thing.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm not retarded, I know the rules. I've been playing 3.5e for 8 years. I've just never been a DM before, so I'm finding that I have to fiat a number of rulings that aren't expressly spelled out in the SRD/PHB/etc that I never really considered before.
And again, please let me make the points that (1) you really don't have to override the RAW that much; and (2) you're asking for trouble if you do so on the fly. If you've never really considered that the existing rules aren't specific enough to handle combat in 8 years of play, you probably don't need to create new rules while you're in the middle of DMing an encounter.

[Callista]

Use him as your rules database. His brain has a compendium of all the rules--well, use it. Either he gets to be your go-to reference guy, or else he gets annoyed by your repeated requests and stops being so lawyerly. Either way, you both win.:smallcool:

[Greyfeld85]

And again, please let me make the points that (1) you really don't have to override the RAW that much; and (2) you're asking for trouble if you do so on the fly. If you've never really considered that the existing rules aren't specific enough to handle combat in 8 years of play, you probably don't need to create new rules while you're in the middle of DMing an encounter.

Previously, a player wanted to leap over a square in an L-shaped hallway corner by using running momentum and gripping the wall as a pivot point to fling himself around the corner. There are no rules for this sort of maneuver, so I had to rule it on the fly as a jump check modified with a dexterity check.

Before that, my players had to use ropes to swing across a spiked pit trap. Unfortunately, when i created the room originally I forgot to account for the DCs of jump checks taken without 10 feet of running room. So on the fly, I ruled that getting momentum by swinging on the ropes first could be used in place of a 10 foot run before the leap.

How many times do I have to say that this has nothing to do with overriding RAW? It's about making rulings on situations that aren't explicitly covered in any of the books.

[Greyfeld85]

As one last attempt to settle this whole situation amicably, I sent him this message:


Ok, now that I've had some time to cool my head a bit...

As the DM, I have the responsibility to adjudicate whenever I feel there are questionable interpretations of the rules. I always always research the situation before making any decision. I don't take these decisions lightly, and I do my best to keep the game fair, balanced, and fun.

If you have a problem with the way I'm ruling on something, you have every right to ask about it, and give me your own interpretation. Afterall, I can make mistakes, and there's always the chance you see something from an angle that I hadn't considered before.

However, if I tell you that I've made a decision on something, I would appreciate if you didn't continue to barrage me with arguments. My final decision is final, and that's the end of it.

This means that, sometimes, I won't always make calls that coincide exactly with the rulebooks. I'll try my best to let you guys know when this is going to be the case, and I apologize ahead of time if I fail to do so, but I'm doing the best I can. If you want to continue playing in this game, I hope you can understand and respect where I'm coming from.

[Fyermind]

Write your own monsters, that way their stats are all unknown to the players. Don't reveal stats, the game doesn't work at that level anyway. Tell your players that you will regularly be changing stats of your monsters before battles to make them more interesting and prevent unfair knowledge advantage.

Use chapter 8 of the players handbook. If you are uncertain what rules are being invoked, and it doesn't appear to be in chapter 8, if it is a player, ask them, if it is a monster, take the closest rule and use it. In your case there was clearly some cover, the cleanest thing to do would be a normal cover bonus, if not an improved cover bonus.

The more homebrew monsters you bring in, the more the game shifts from the rules lawyer knowing more about what ought to be going on than he believes you do, to the rules lawyer trying to learn the rules blind (a much more enjoyable situation for everyone). If he contests you on something he doesn't have a good reason of knowing, just say something like "I made this monster... it has stats, you just haven't found them yet."

In the event you choose to deviate from RAW or run into a circumstance it doesn't appear to cover, document it, tell your players about your ruling as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

When a player suggests something weird (ie. using agitate matter on the targets face) say "That is cool, but it has no rules governing it so I will model it on [existing rule, ie. agitate matter's normal effects] but I will describe the scene in line with your idea."

[Curmudgeon]

Previously, a player wanted to leap over a square in an L-shaped hallway corner by using running momentum and gripping the wall as a pivot point to fling himself around the corner. There are no rules for this sort of maneuver, so I had to rule it on the fly as a jump check modified with a dexterity check.
Actually there are standard rules for these things; you just have to take them as they occur rather than try to make up a rule for all the parts as one indivisible maneuver.
Long Jump: A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream.
Check: With a successful Climb check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed.
Give the skill user a +2 circumstance bonus to represent conditions that improve performance Leaping over a square, not supported on any surface, is a Jump check. While you're moving in contact with a wall and not on the ground, it's a Climb check. You can use existing momentum to justify a circumstance bonus for that Climb check. These checks are separate, and either part of the maneuver sequence can fail. There are also skill tricks (like Leaping Climber) that can make such a maneuver easier, but they're not required.

When you're playing your own character in D&D you've probably got a handle on the majority of the rules related to how you go about doing most things, and if you don't you can always ask your DM. But when you're the DM you need to know the rules much better, so you'll be able to associate actions for all the characters with all the necessary rules. As I just pointed out, there are existing rules that cover the situation where you made something up on the fly. Since that's both unnecessary and confusing to players who do know the rules, I strongly echo Callista's recommendation that you use your rules lawyer as a helpful reference to avert such RAW-unaware rulings.

[Gavinfoxx]

Make an OOC thread specifically for him to voice rules complaints, that only you and he can see. Give him a suggestion to post any of his issues as they come up as replies in such in a thread, and you will regularly read that thread, and edit / retcon things as appropriate, but that you control the pacing of the game and how things work.

[Greyfeld85]

Actually there are standard rules for these things; you just have to take them as they occur rather than try to make up a rule for all the parts as one indivisible maneuver. Leaping over a square, not supported on any surface, is a Jump check. While you're moving in contact with a wall and not on the ground, it's a Climb check. You can use existing momentum to justify a circumstance bonus for that Climb check. These checks are separate, and either part of the maneuver sequence can fail. There are also skill tricks (like Leaping Climber) that can make such a maneuver easier, but they're not required.

Using a wall as a pivot point for your momentum is not the same as climbing it. "Advancing" along a wall, in that context, doesn't mean the same thing in my opinion that it does to you. Thus, I didn't feel climb applied. In PF or 4e, it would just be a flat acrobatics check. Every time you add an additional skill check to something, you grant another chance of failure, and I wasn't going to penalize my player for using their imagination to bypass a potential trap.

[El Dorado]

It's been said but I'll add my 2 cents. The way to handle a rules lawyer is to define the framework in which the rules are used. Let your players know that you may change things from time to time (for the sake of story or mood or whatever). The worst thing you can say is that you're going "by the book." Those three words put the GM a step below a book and, once you've said that, no matter what the DMG says, you've ceded your authority to an inanimate object. I don't recommend using the lawyer as a database; again, that's surrendering authority, and that's not a group dynamic you want to encourage if you are trying to rein in a player.

[JKTrickster]

I honestly don't think this is an issue of the rules lawyer, just that he fears that you are going to change rules to disadvantage him.

That's extremely important.

If he believes that, he will always be antagonistic to you. Any action you take to "remedy" your problem will be met with resistance.

You should talk to him about this. It's always bad for a DM vs Player mentality to develop.

[nedz]

Whilst I like the idea of using the lawyer as a living reference book that can go wrong in a couple of ways: it might smack of favouratism to the other players and your lawyer might be wrong. This was an issue I ran into when I first started running 3.5.

A better solution is to pause the game (thats going to happen already, right ?) and ask the group what they think. This way you have collective responsability. You are no longer the tyrant and peer pressure should resolve the rest.

[Knaight]

Here's what Dungeon Master's Guide II says about house rules (on page 80): [Stuff] "Jerking players around" is my shorthand for failing to follow that procedure: changing the rules while the game is underway, rather than giving the players advance notice of differences from the standard rules. (Jerking = changing course in a sudden, quick way. Jerk in physics is defined as the change in acceleration over time.)
The DMG II is a collection of bad advice, replete with gems such as outright advocating denying players narrative control (see the section on episodic gaming). It really shouldn't be taken as some sort of an authority.

With that said - I'm inclined to agree to some extent. D&D 3.x is a heavy game with a great many interacting mechanics that does not behave well under a rulings based framework. Either the rulings need to be cut down in frequency, or a game which can accept a rulings based framework needs to be used.

[mucco]

As one last attempt to settle this whole situation amicably, I sent him this message:

Speaking from experience, I've found quite a good way to deal with rules lawyers who might get less than mature from time to time.

The first step is to send the message you just wrote. gg. I'd have made it a bit less serious because I hate being serious in games, and it sets a lighter tone, but whatever.

The second and most important step is, the next few times he argues again (and he will, just not right after you sent that message), immediately agree with him and do what he says. This will make him understand that you a) are listening to him, b) you are a reasonable person and c) you are not antagonizing him. If you are 100% sure on a ruling, agree with him anyway. You want him to develop a good attitude toward you. Then, when you say "no" for the first time, he'll respect your authority a lot more.

[Worira]

The decision to have cover provide only a +2 bonus isn't a ruling on an ambiguous wording, it's a houserule. The rules on cover are very clear: the attacker chooses a corner of their space, and if there is a barrier between that corner and any corner of the defender's space, the defender gets at least +4 to AC. Nowhere in the rules does it say "unless the defender is firing a ranged weapon at the attacker". The rules are obviously not meant for someone cowering entirely behind a wall, and if they did, they would have total cover. Your player was upset with you introducing a houserule that negated his tactical choice, in the middle of combat and with no warning. And justifiably so.

[Greyfeld85]

The decision to have cover provide only a +2 bonus isn't a ruling on an ambiguous wording, it's a houserule. The rules on cover are very clear: the attacker chooses a corner of their space, and if there is a barrier between that corner and any corner of the defender's space, the defender gets at least +4 to AC. Nowhere in the rules does it say "unless the defender is firing a ranged weapon at the attacker". The rules are obviously not meant for someone cowering entirely behind a wall, and if they did, they would have total cover. Your player was upset with you introducing a houserule that negated his tactical choice, in the middle of combat and with no warning. And justifiably so.

I'm sorry, the next time I see a rule as ambiguous, I'll make sure to come ask you first. Afterall, you're obviously the highest authority on how the rules work and how others should interpret them.

[huttj509]

As to how to handle that situation, I think things might have gone smoother if, when you heard they were planning to shoot from behind cover, you said something along the lines of "if you're leaning out to shoot you won't get as much of an AC bonus from the cover." At this point the player can make an informed decision on the consequences of their action.

When you know you're making an ad-hoc ruling, bringing it up before the action will generally go over better than just applying it. This can also apply to situations where, for example, a barbarian might think from the description of things he'd have a 50% chance to swing on a rope, jumping off, grab the cliff on the way down as he falls, and climb up it, so he decides to try it. If you think the DC is such that he'd only have a 5% chance, it will go over better if you say "That's a really tough stunt, you'll only succeed on a 20, are you sure?" as opposed to seeing the barbarian roll a 19, fail, and now he's wondering why, because you and he had differing assumptions of the chance of success.

[chomskola]

Re: curmudgeon. I think you are being arrant purist here. It is not really easy to know all the rules inside out. The core books especially the DM guide GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to encourage DM flexibility, driving the story forward and not getting bogged down versus accurate application of rules in all situations. Furthermore, this is a situation not covered by the rules. As far as i remember it was just the pedantry of 3rd edition that Gary Gygax was so opposed to as it reduced the role of the DM. Personally, I like the pedantry and the exquisite rule detail. Since we have a forum where large numbers of experienced players (myself excepted) debate over months and years over the interpretation of even basic rules, is it really realistic that a DM would have a rigorous knowledge that would cover situations that come up before they come up? I think that sounds oppressive, maybe i'm just a lousy (but realistic) DM.

[Zarrgon]

I think I see your problem. Your getting stuck on the things 'maybe, kinda, sorta vaguely' covered in the rules....but not really in detail. This is a common enough problem.

When the rules say 'if a character does X they get a +2 to Y' and the character does something 'sort of like x, but not exactly' you can always run into disagreements.

But there is a simple solution.....don't do X or anything like it.

If the players might 'sort of' use cover...they simply have no cover for them to use. Or have the foes have abilities that negate cover(for example, throwing a alchemist flask behind the cover). Or even just have the foes retreat.

The best way to go is to increase the fantasy a tiny bit. That way you can have all sorts of fantastical things. For example if the characters are behind a big stone most attack spells won't hurt the stone....but if they are behind a block of 'explodinum' then one point of fire damage will cause it to explode.

[Greyfeld85]

lol "explodinum," I like it :P