So apprently I am a rules lawyer.

[Talakeal]

So I have been trying to find a new gaming group, and I have noticed that none of them actually follow the rules.

They play published games, and use most of the rules, but a lot of rules they get wrong or simply ignore certain rules, or relegate them to the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party.

I don't mean that they have a list of house rules or fixes, and I don't mean exploiting crazy raw loopholes. I mean that they disallow basic character options from the core book. For example, in the Mage group I have joined they won't allow characters who have a focus other than a specific physical object, and in the D&D game I joined the DM declares that attacks of opportunity are to work on pure DM FIAT, and we get or provoke attacks of opportunity when he says so, not when the rulebook says so, and there is no consistent pattern. He has likewise banned all feats that deal with AoOs like combat reflexes, step up, spell breaker, etc. These are not the only things they do, the list goes on and on, and many of them even benefit the players, but there doesn't seem to be any rime or reason to them and they trip me up whenever I try and do something and then am shot down in the act for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

When I bring up my discomfort, I am told that I am a rules lawyer and am treated like a jerk for coming in and bossing everyone else around/

I have noticed the same thing in a lot of board games like Risk and Monopoly, its not just RPGs, but in these cases they seem to generally believe the game is played their way because they have never actually read the rulebook, merely learned them from friends and family members. Is it the same thing with RPGs?

So is this normal? I have been kind of isolated from flesh and blood gaming groups for the last few years and playing with my own personal group where I DM, or talking on the internet when typically RAW is king even when it flies in the face of common sense. It really seems normal though, as all of the new groups I have joined flout the rulebooks to some extent. Am I a rules lawyer for wanting some consistency to base my actions on? What should I do?

[Hyena]

...have you tried building an online group from people you like on giantitp? It might help.

[Segev]

This doesn't necessarily make you a rules lawyer, but it does mean your style of play and theirs don't mesh well. If everybody else is comfortable with that level of DM fiat, that's their business and their game. I do wish you luck finding one that more suits your proclivities.

[Red Fel]

This doesn't necessarily make you a rules lawyer, but it does mean your style of play and theirs don't mesh well. If everybody else is comfortable with that level of DM fiat, that's their business and their game. I do wish you luck finding one that more suits your proclivities.

This. If, as you say, you're simply expressing your discomfort at a different set of rules/houserules, you're doing the right thing by expressing your experience and preferences upfront. That's not rules-lawyering. It's being proactive. The line between what you're doing and being a rules lawyer is delineated by the phrase "You're supposed to." As long as you're telling them what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable, as opposed to telling them what they should or should not be doing, you're not a rules lawyer.

And as Segev points out, if your comfort with respect to rules doesn't match up with that of your group, you may be better off finding a new group - or, at least, finding a new game on whose rules you agree.

With respect to your last question (how common this is), almost every group has developed its favored houserules and adaptations. The longer a group plays, the more likely these adaptations are to develop. Some are aware that these houserules diverge from the RAW; some are so accustomed to them that they simply assume them to be RAW. What's important is finding a group with which you are comfortable. Be aware, however, that groups that use pure RAW, with few or no houserule adjustments, are (at least in my experience) quite uncommon. This is often justified by certain loopholes, exploits, or this-doesn't-make-sense-how-can-you-what problems with RAW, common to many systems. (If you need more evidence, just look up one of the many dysfunctional rules threads in this forum and its subforums.)

[Talakeal]

With respect to your last question (how common this is), almost every group has developed its favored houserules and adaptations. The longer a group plays, the more likely these adaptations are to develop. Some are aware that these houserules diverge from the RAW; some are so accustomed to them that they simply assume them to be RAW. What's important is finding a group with which you are comfortable. Be aware, however, that groups that use pure RAW, with few or no houserule adjustments, are (at least in my experience) quite uncommon. This is often justified by certain loopholes, exploits, or this-doesn't-make-sense-how-can-you-what problems with RAW, common to many systems. (If you need more evidence, just look up one of the many dysfunctional rules threads in this forum and its subforums.)

I don't mind house rules and fixes at all. I just wish people would have reasons for them and be up front about them rather than reducing them to DM FIAT or waiting to tell me something is banned until the moment I try to use it.

[Sartharina]

I don't mind house rules and fixes at all. I just wish people would have reasons for them and be up front about them rather than reducing them to DM FIAT or waiting to tell me something is banned until the moment I try to use it.It's difficult to be up-front about things that have a long history that they've taken for granted.

[valadil]

I used to play like your group. Back until 3.5 came out, only the GM knew the rules and was free to change them up as needed. I've got some nostalgia for that kind of play, but I don't know if I could ever go back to it. If I did, it would have to be for a game I didn't know very well. Ignoring rules that I know seems like a bad time.

[Galen]

I have noticed the same thing in a lot of board games like Risk and Monopoly, its not just RPGs, but in these cases they seem to generally believe the game is played their way because they have never actually read the rulebook, merely learned them from friends and family members. Is it the same thing with RPGs?

So is this normal? Yes. Yes it is.

Isolated gaming communities (eg. a small playgroup that has been playing for a while with no contact with other communities or the internet) develop their own sets of rules and codes, what's "wrong" and what's "right". Of course they could have easily gone on the internet or read a book and figured out what the actual rule is, but it's just not important enough for them. They don't care what the actual book-rule is. They made one up in the spur of the moment, and it's good enough for them.



Am I a rules lawyer for wanting some consistency to base my actions on?
If it's any consolation, no, you're not. But, see, here's the problem, you're gaming with *people*. And people are not consistent.


What should I do?
I would honestly suggest just rolling with it. Embrace the wonderful mosaic that is the humankind. If you're ever in a group of people, and they have a different set of codes and social rules [and this actually goes beyond game rules], try respecting those codes and see what happens. Of course, if the codes are such that you can't possibly respect them, it's probably best you leave.

[Urpriest]

The board games analogy is really spot on. It's a level of casual where you're not actually interested in reading and understanding the rules, despite that in many cases being more fun (or at least more accessible fun) than the actual game, coupled with a level of unimaginative that doesn't bother to seek out games that actually cater to that playstyle.

It's...let's just say I don't like people like that.

[Red Fel]

Well, Monopoly is actually a perfect example. You see, there's a little quirk in the RAW where, if a player lands on a property that hasn't been purchased and declines to purchase it, it goes immediately to auction. As in, anybody, including the player who declined to buy, can then bid on that property.

Go ahead and look, if you have a copy of the rules. Better yet, take a look at them here (http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf). Second page, under "Buying Property."

I've played this game for years. I imagine a lot of people here have. When I first learned of this rule, I was shocked. It made perfect sense, of course - it speeds the game up and keeps things from getting repetitive. But I'd never heard of it. Since then, not a single person I know has been aware of this rule. They always played it as simply a case of, if you don't want to buy it, you don't buy it, and gameplay moves on. A house rule. They played it that way. Their parents played it that way. Depending on the age of the parties involved, their grandparents played it that way.

And in the context of Monopoly, that house rule makes sense. It's a family game - a game to be played with, among other people, small children. If someone lands on a property and does or doesn't buy it, it's a quirk of the dice. It's chance. But if you get involved in a bidding war against someone, particularly a small child, there's a possibility of loud words and hurt feelings. (Not saying all small children are like this, but some are. Frankly, some adults are, too.) So most people didn't play with that rule, and over time they simply took for granted that it didn't exist.

That's where many gaming tables end up. As Sartharina points out, house rules like this have such a long history that they're taken for granted. When you sit down to play a game of Monopoly, most players probably won't ask, "Before we begin, are we playing with or without the auction rules?" (I would, but I'm an overinformed twit.) Most would simply assume that the house rule - the one with which most players are familiar, the one they assume to be an actual rule - is in effect. They wouldn't think to ask, because it wouldn't occur to them that there's a need to.

[MLai]

I just learned something new about Monopoly.

Yay.

[jedipotter]

So is this normal? I have been kind of isolated from flesh and blood gaming groups for the last few years and playing with my own personal group where I DM, or talking on the internet when typically RAW is king even when it flies in the face of common sense. It really seems normal though, as all of the new groups I have joined flout the rulebooks to some extent. Am I a rules lawyer for wanting some consistency to base my actions on? What should I do?

It is normal. Even with board games a lot of people have house rules...that they don't even know are house rules. A lot of people are taught to play the game with house rules, and they never even read the official rules. And, quite often, everyone around the same area knows and uses the same house rules.

And RPGs, and D&D is even worse. Most of the ''common sense'' house rules that I lot of DM's use (like monks getting full BaB ) are thought of by some as ''official rules''.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's normal, but I don't like it either. That's why I'm always confused when people say they're intimidated by a long list of house rules. Almost everyone has a long list of house rules, and this hypothetical DM is at least willing to show you them!

Also, fees on free parking, double $$ if you land on go, and the (in our case willful) disregard of the auction rule is the main reason I rarely ended a game of monopoly with my family - not out of anger, but a boring stalemate where no one had a monopoly and no one would trade, and money would just keep piling up....

[BeerMug Paladin]

Monopoly stuff...
I actually was aware of this rule before just now, but I don't think I've ever actually played in a game with it before. Mostly because I think when people hear about it, it's so obviously not the correct way to play the game, so they think it's made up nonsense.

I occasionally flick through rulebooks or details for gaming systems I've played in (or run) for years, and find a rule like this in the game books that groups I know just don't typically ever use.

Whenever that happens, I'm tempted to do one of two things. Design an encounter around the unused rule (to make everyone remember it) or ignore it completely in favor of the status quo.

I'd be amazed if I met a DM capable of handling all the tiny minutae and keeping all the details of a complex system straight in their head. In my experience, most DMs bias the entire game system (by ignoring rules or house rules) for their favorite classes or character options. (If not to favor specific players.)

If you're trying to find a new gaming group, it might help you out if you figure out what character class or skills the DM likes and go with that. For example, one guy I game with, no matter what system he uses, likes to focus on heavy combat encounters.

For some reason, I keep making socialite vampires in his Vampire games, or learned scholars in the Call of Cthulhu games he runs, when most of the other players make braindead hulks of muscle.

I usually don't do very well in those games for that reason, but I don't mind mostly having my character exist mostly as a plot facilitator. Usually, I can at least avoid or evade the worst physical trauma if I can't outright do much else.

Anyway, if you're going to go through an adjustment period in the first place, it might help you to know which character option the DM favors in this way, that way when the house rules (or whatever bias) comes, you at least won't have (as bad of a) diminished expectation of what your character ought to be able to accomplish for how you built them.

[Mastikator]

Sounds like what you want is consistency and knowing the rules of the game at hand, not necessarily official rules.

I don't think it makes you a lawyer of any kind, it's entirely reasonable to demand that you play on a level playing field with regards to knowing the rules.

[Jay R]

So I have been trying to find a new gaming group, and I have noticed that none of them actually follow the rules.

That's not quite correct. They don't use all the published rules, but the published rules are not complete, and have never been intended to be the final word.

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Somebody who has changed or ignored certain specific rules is indeed following the rules, because the rules explicitly allow that.


They play published games, and use most of the rules, but a lot of rules they get wrong or simply ignore certain rules, or relegate them to the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party.

Calling it "the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party" or anything similar is likely to annoy people far more than your specific preference. If you made this kind of insult in front of them, then that is what they dislike.


I don't mean that they have a list of house rules or fixes, and I don't mean exploiting crazy raw loopholes. I mean that they disallow basic character options from the core book.

Yup. Perfectly legal, within the rules.


For example, in the Mage group I have joined they won't allow characters who have a focus other than a specific physical object, and in the D&D game I joined the DM declares that attacks of opportunity are to work on pure DM FIAT, and we get or provoke attacks of opportunity when he says so, not when the rulebook says so, and there is no consistent pattern. He has likewise banned all feats that deal with AoOs like combat reflexes, step up, spell breaker, etc. These are not the only things they do, the list goes on and on, and many of them even benefit the players, but there doesn't seem to be any rime or reason to them and they trip me up whenever I try and do something and then am shot down in the act for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

The same rules that allow the DM to do that also warn against doing it capriciously. If the majority of the players dislike the ruleset in play, then you have a valid objection. Are any other players upset?


When I bring up my discomfort, I am told that I am a rules lawyer and am treated like a jerk for coming in and bossing everyone else around/

If you said anything like "the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party", then you are being a jerk. Step one is to apologize for that level of insult, and step two is to argue in favor of the subset of the rules you like (the books withoutDM authority to change the rules) against the subset of the rules that they like (the books without non-physical foci and attacks of opportunity).

Also, bringing up your objections is not "bossing everyone else around." I recommend that you review your words and actions and figure out exactly what you did that was. I suspect that your wording is the problem, much more than your objections.


I have noticed the same thing in a lot of board games like Risk and Monopoly, its not just RPGs, but in these cases they seem to generally believe the game is played their way because they have never actually read the rulebook, merely learned them from friends and family members. Is it the same thing with RPGs?

Yes, human nature remains human nature, regardless of the game in front of them.


So is this normal? I have been kind of isolated from flesh and blood gaming groups for the last few years and playing with my own personal group where I DM, or talking on the internet when typically RAW is king even when it flies in the face of common sense.

I have played since 1975, and have never seen a game in which RAW was king. Of course, I would avoid a game that flies in the face of common sense, so maybe there are a lot of them out there that I don't notice.


It really seems normal though, as all of the new groups I have joined flout the rulebooks to some extent. Am I a rules lawyer for wanting some consistency to base my actions on? What should I do?

"Wanting some consistency to base my actions on"? No, that's fine.

Demanding that the DM's rules be supplanted by your preferences? Yes, that's trying to be a rules lawyer.

Find out what the rules changes are, and base your actions on those. Voila, you have some consistency to base my actions on. Any rules that the DM will not describe are considered facts you don't know, and you can base your actions on that. For instance, the DM is clearly trying to de-emphasize attacks of opportunity. That fact is the consistency to base your actions on - don't focus on them.

And they are not flouting the rulebooks. The rulebooks explicitly allow what the group is doing. Until you realize that their approach to D&D is just as valid as yours, you will have difficulty convincing them to consider your alternate approach.

[Segev]

I first encountered the auction rule when I played a computer version of Monopoly. I was baffled, and thought it an optional rule or something. It wasn't until many years later that I realized it was right there in the official rules.

Nowadays, when I play Monopoly, I try to convince people to go with that rule, as it does speed things up. I also have a great deal of fun buying certain rights to others' property. Helping them establish monopolies in exchange for immunity to the property, for instance. Offering them immunities to some of my properties for similar considerations. Sometimes just a 10% cut of anybody who lands on them.

It's a lot more fun for me, that way, with lots of wheeling and dealing to get the most secure money stream possible while still helping people get what they want. It becomes a game about balancing one's own benefits against those of others as much as the luck of the dice. It really feels like we're playing a game, at that point.


I've also noticed that most people who do not play chess at a level above "casual" learn it with unknown house rules. I've seen people who think every piece a knight jumps is captured, or who don't know about capturing en passant, or for whom castling might or might not be allowed after you've been in check, or whether you can castle THROUGH a threatened square or not. I've seen people who think you can only promote a pawn to a piece that's already been captured.

So it's quite common to see games with house rules that the players are unaware are not the same rules everybody else plays by.

[The Random NPC]

...
I've also noticed that most people who do not play chess at a level above "casual" learn it with unknown house rules. I've seen people who think every piece a knight jumps is captured, or who don't know about capturing en passant, or for whom castling might or might not be allowed after you've been in check, or whether you can castle THROUGH a threatened square or not. I've seen people who think you can only promote a pawn to a piece that's already been captured.

So it's quite common to see games with house rules that the players are unaware are not the same rules everybody else plays by.

Interestingly I believe there was a tournament won by promoting a pawn to an opponent's piece.

[Segev]

Interestingly I believe there was a tournament won by promoting a pawn to an opponent's piece.

...is that legal?

[Jay R]

One more thought: have you been discussing it in-game, or debating what the rules should be out of game?

I'm asking for a simple reason. Discussing what the rules should be, and making your points forcefully, out of game, is not being a rules lawyer. But pointing to a rulebook and arguing with the DM, during the game, after she has made her ruling, is the very essence of rules lawyering.

[Galen]

...is that legal?
It's an urban legend, and I doubt it actually happened. The position given in this often-rehashed story is:
White: King b5, rook c7, pawn b7
Black: King a7, rook a8

White played the pawn to b8, promoting to a black knight, checkmate. Neat but pointless, since taking the rook also wins easily. Anyway, if it did happen, it was against the rules, since FIDE laws of chess specify promotion to a piece of the same color.

[The Random NPC]

...is that legal?


It's an urban legend, and I doubt it actually happened. The position given in this often-rehashed story is:
White: King b5, rook c7, pawn b7
Black: King a7, rook a8

White played the pawn to b8, promoting to a black knight, checkmate. Neat but pointless, since taking the rook also wins easily. Anyway, if it did happen, it was against the rules, since FIDE laws of chess specify promotion to a piece of the same color.

The rules for pawn promotion have changed over the years, at one time it was illegal to promote a pawn until you had lost a piece, at others pawns weren't ever promoted. At the time, chess was a lot less regulated, and yes usually you can get a checkmate by another action.

[Galen]

Also, Wikipedia to the rescue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke_chess_problem#Offbeat_interpretations_of_the_ rules_of_chess

[Talakeal]

@JR

Obviously the rules are allowed to be changed, but how thhis works depends. For example in mage it says the group as a whole can change the rules, there is no special permission for the storyteller to do it on their own. And most editions of d&d have limits, for example consistency, thinking them out first, or sharing them with the players. Even so, debating over whether or not a dm who ignores a printed section of the rules in favor of their own homebrew is following te rules of not is mostly a semantic one and i dont think quibbling over it will be relevant to the discussion.


As for using loaded terms like magic tea party, no, i havent said anything in person aside from a few confused inquiries as to what was going on. I am not sure if i should say anything, which was one of the reasons for this thread.

As to attacks of opportunity, its not that he doesnt use them. He allows them and e monsters take them all the time. The problem is he doesnt seem to hve any system for when they do or do not, and his monsters have smacked me around for taking actions that dont normally provoke attacks of opportunity like drawing a weapon, five foot step, or disengage.

[kyoryu]

Well, Monopoly is actually a perfect example. You see, there's a little quirk in the RAW where, if a player lands on a property that hasn't been purchased and declines to purchase it, it goes immediately to auction. As in, anybody, including the player who declined to buy, can then bid on that property.

There's another interesting Monopoly bit.

The very common house rule that any money paid out (taxes, etc.) goes to the center of the board, and then anybody landing on Free Parking gets it.

This is a terrible rule. It is responsible for dragging the game out even longer than Monopoly tends to. The taxes/fees/etc. are in the game to remove money from the economy. By returning them to the economy, you're *breaking the game*.

Now, I'm not a RAW fiend. But I do believe that you should understand the rules *well* before you start tweaking them, and when you tweak them, you should:

a) be able to argue why the rule is in there in the first place
b) explain why it's not appropriate to your game - what impact it's having that's not right
c) do the minimum tweak necessary

Most of the rule changes listed in the OP sound very much like they didn't get past the first part of my suggestions there.

[The Insanity]

If it makes you uncomfortable, just don't play with them. Honestly, I wouldn't be okay with such behaviour either and would rather not play at all than endure all the stupid. Not worth the trouble and stress.

[Jay R]

Even so, debating over whether or not a dm who ignores a printed section of the rules in favor of their own homebrew is following te rules of not is mostly a semantic one and i dont think quibbling over it will be relevant to the discussion.

I have no interest in quibbling over it. I'm just trying to get you to stop calling it, or think of it, as "flouting the rules". It isn't.

Until you stop thinking of it as "the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party," you are not ready to play in most D&D games, and many other games.


As for using loaded terms like magic tea party, no, i havent said anything in person aside from a few confused inquiries as to what was going on. I am not sure if i should say anything, which was one of the reasons for this thread.

Are you sure? Something has mad them tell you that you are a rules lawyer and made them treat you like a jerk for coming in and bossing everyone else around. (Your phrasing, not mine.)

Something upset them. Until you figure out what it is, you are not ready to try to negotiate with them again.


As to attacks of opportunity, its not that he doesnt use them. He allows them and e monsters take them all the time. The problem is he doesnt seem to hve any system for when they do or do not, and his monsters have smacked me around for taking actions that dont normally provoke attacks of opportunity like drawing a weapon, five foot step, or disengage.

You need to say, "I don't understand your attack of opportunity rules. When I drew a weapon aginst X, it drew one. When I made a five foot step, I drew one. Will the same action on the monsters' part give me an AoO on them? My fighter is trying to learn to fight effectively, and wants to learn not to provoke them. Can you explain you AoO rules?

Note that this phrasing carries no hint of flouting, of "mother may I", of "magic tea party", of bossing anyone, of rules lawyering. It's a sincere request to learn the rules.

[Talakeal]

I have no interest in quibbling over it. I'm just trying to get you to stop calling it, or think of it, as "flouting the rules". It isn't.

Until you stop thinking of it as "the realm of pure mother may I / magic tea party," you are not ready to play in most D&D games, and many other games.
.

I am using "mother may I / magic tea party" as short hand for rules that are completely arbitrary or inconsistent as I have seen those terms used on these forums numerous times. If the phrase offends you I won't use it.

To me there is a world of difference between having a house rule such as "All natural 20s automatically crit without the need to confirm," and "You crit whenever I feel like it. The dice and the circumstances have nothing to say about it."

I do not have fun in games where I cannot make meaningful or informed decisions, and as such house rules that are not stated up front or do not have any structure are not fun for me.




Are you sure? Something has mad them tell you that you are a rules lawyer and made them treat you like a jerk for coming in and bossing everyone else around. (Your phrasing, not mine.)



Yeah, shoot, reading my initial post I did say that. It didn't go down like that in so many words, and I am sorry that I gave the impression that it did. Basically the DM is of the mindset that he has absolute authority over everything and that anyone who questions him is in the wrong. I ask questions like "Shouldn't I get to make an attack of opportunity? or "Don't I get a save to resist that spell?" and I feel that he views me as an interloper who is trying to take authority away from him in the eyes of his players.

The rules lawyer thing actually comes up in conversations rather than in game, for example I was telling a story about a previous game where two enemies with combat reflexes and no improved disarm were trying to disarm each other and provoking a chain of attempts going back and forth. The DM flat out stated that was wrong, that AoOs were only a basic attack and couldn't use maneuvers, and when I looked it up in the rule book and showed him where it specifically says you can that he got mad and called me a rules lawyer despite the fact that he was trying to tell me I was wrong about a game that happened five years ago; I fear to think what would happen if it came up in his game.

[Galen]

"The DM is the ultimate authority for everything" is actually a play style that many groups subscribe to. Usually, it's when a single more-or-less experienced player builds a core of complete neophytes around him. They are willing to 100% defer to the DM's judgement in all matters D&D-related. And you know what, it works for them, this group dynamic. They are okay with having an unquestionable DM authority. The mentality is: "the DM's word is the reality of the world. Whatever he says, happens in the world, and that's that". They don't care that page 87 of the PHB contradicts what the DM just said. That's in fact what such group is about - a collection of players coming around a DM and accepting the right of their DM to run the game as he sees fit.

It's a valid play style choice.

[Jay R]

I am using "mother may I / magic tea party" as short hand for rules that are completely arbitrary or inconsistent as I have seen those terms used on these forums numerous times. If the phrase offends you I won't use it.

Don't worry about offending me; I'm not in the game, and I'm trying to help you. You're saying something that is offending these people. I suggest you try to figure out what it is.


To me there is a world of difference between having a house rule such as "All natural 20s automatically crit without the need to confirm," and "You crit whenever I feel like it. The dice and the circumstances have nothing to say about it."

And a world of difference between either of those and "you crit based on dice and circumstances I'm not telling you." You have once again described it in negative terms.

If you actually believe the things you've said about this DM, why are you trying to play the game? I'd be running away as fast as I can. But in forty years of gaming, I've never seen a DM as bad as you describe.


I do not have fun in games where I cannot make meaningful or informed decisions, and as such house rules that are not stated up front or do not have any structure are not fun for me.

When was the last time you had fun in a game? You've described several experiences, and I can't remember a positive one.


Yeah, shoot, reading my initial post I did say that. It didn't go down like that in so many words, and I am sorry that I gave the impression that it did.

Frankly, I suspect that it did, whether you recognized it or not. In this thread and others, you have pretty consistently described other gamers in negative terms.


Basically the DM is of the mindset that he has absolute authority over everything and that anyone who questions him is in the wrong. I ask questions like "Shouldn't I get to make an attack of opportunity? or "Don't I get a save to resist that spell?" and I feel that he views me as an interloper who is trying to take authority away from him in the eyes of his players.

I strongly urge you to change the wording. Ask, "Do I get to make an attack of opportunity? or "Do I get a save to resist that spell?" and you are asking about the rules, rather than challenging him.

Say things in a positive way, rather than a negative one.

Step one might be to ask yourself how many positive game experiences you've had in the last five years, and how many negative ones.


The rules lawyer thing actually comes up in conversations rather than in game, for example I was telling a story about a previous game where two enemies with combat reflexes and no improved disarm were trying to disarm each other and provoking a chain of attempts going back and forth. The DM flat out stated that was wrong, that AoOs were only a basic attack and couldn't use maneuvers, and when I looked it up in the rule book and showed him where it specifically says you can that he got mad and called me a rules lawyer despite the fact that he was trying to tell me I was wrong about a game that happened five years ago; I fear to think what would happen if it came up in his game.

Don't worry; it won't. He has specifically prevented it, because he thinks it's wrong.

I recommend an exercise. Think back over the game, and describe five things the DM did that were well done. Describe them in purely positive terms, without a negative kick at the end. After you do that, it may be easier to think about the things you didn't like a little more objectively.

And if you can't, leave the game. It has nothing for you.

[Sith_Happens]

But in forty years of gaming, I've never seen a DM as bad as you describe.

Maybe you haven't, but there's a whole thread full of people who have.

[RedWarlock]

Yep, I've seen that bad. You can try to play in their world for a little while, for as long as you can stomach it, but if you expect any sanity or rules-consistency, run away, run very fast.

There is good to go with the bad, otherwise folks wouldn't have stuck around, but for myself and a few others, it just got too chaotic and unfriendly. One player did something to make the DM dislike him, and from there on out, that player had nothing but trouble for all his characters in-game.

[Curbstomp]

Talakeal-

I have a couple things to say:

1. In the OP it sounded like AoO were the only problem? That AoO are essentially the only area of inconsistency? If that is the case, just don't build a character who relies on them. Having said that, from your later posts it sounds as if there are other balance and consistency issues from this DM's homebrew choices. If you cannot get a consistent answer on what rule changes are in effect, then I would not play with that group either.

2. You have terrible luck with RPG groups. Both tragically and, to an extent, hilariously bad from the posts I have read. If you want a sane game for an extended weekend and can schedule time in Michigan get ahold of me. I'll let you know when I have a free weekend from work and one of the three weekly game groups I run will happily do a one-shot two-or-three-day campaign with you. We're pretty hospitable. You'll be able to crash on a couch. About 1/3 of my 12-15 players (adding the groups together) were originally met through the internet. So it won't exactly be a new thing for us.

[Sartharina]

The rules lawyer thing actually comes up in conversations rather than in game, for example I was telling a story about a previous game where two enemies with combat reflexes and no improved disarm were trying to disarm each other and provoking a chain of attempts going back and forth. The DM flat out stated that was wrong, that AoOs were only a basic attack and couldn't use maneuvers, and when I looked it up in the rule book and showed him where it specifically says you can that he got mad and called me a rules lawyer despite the fact that he was trying to tell me I was wrong about a game that happened five years ago; I fear to think what would happen if it came up in his game.... from the rules lawyer standpoint, you can't AoO someone more than once in a round. However - I could easily see a DM making a ruling that you can't make an AoO with an attack that would provoke an AoO (So someone with Improved Disarm could disarm on an AoO, or tripping someone without Improved Trip against someone who's unarmed.)

You could try going for a sympathy route "Sorry - I've been stuck with the some of the worst groups ever, and this is how I learned to cope with it all"

[Talakeal]

... from the rules lawyer standpoint, you can't AoO someone more than once in a round. However - I could easily see a DM making a ruling that you can't make an AoO with an attack that would provoke an AoO (So someone with Improved Disarm could disarm on an AoO, or tripping someone without Improved Trip against someone who's unarmed.)

You could try going for a sympathy route "Sorry - I've been stuck with the some of the worst groups ever, and this is how I learned to cope with it all"

The last paragraph of PHB page 137 states that if you have combat reflexes you can make multiple attacks of opportunity against the same foe provided they perform different actions to provoke them.

[Talakeal]

Don't worry about offending me; I'm not in the game, and I'm trying to help you. You're saying something that is offending these people. I suggest you try to figure out what it is.

And a world of difference between either of those and "you crit based on dice and circumstances I'm not telling you." You have once again described it in negative terms.

If you actually believe the things you've said about this DM, why are you trying to play the game? I'd be running away as fast as I can. But in forty years of gaming, I've never seen a DM as bad as you describe.

When was the last time you had fun in a game? You've described several experiences, and I can't remember a positive one.

Step one might be to ask yourself how many positive game experiences you've had in the last five years, and how many negative ones.

I recommend an exercise. Think back over the game, and describe five things the DM did that were well done. Describe them in purely positive terms, without a negative kick at the end. After you do that, it may be easier to think about the things you didn't like a little more objectively.

And if you can't, leave the game. It has nothing for you.

Ok, the thing is, I like gaming. I would be having fun if it was just a randomly generated dungeon played with the core rules of any edition of D&D. Even a bad DM or group of players is still a heck of a lot more fun for me than sitting around doing nothing.
I have had many experiences where a GM or another player did something that greatly boosted my enjoyment over the years, but I am not going to start a forum thread asking for advice about a positive experience.



Talakeal-

I have a couple things to say:

1. In the OP it sounded like AoO were the only problem? That AoO are essentially the only area of inconsistency? If that is the case, just don't build a character who relies on them. Having said that, from your later posts it sounds as if there are other balance and consistency issues from this DM's homebrew choices. If you cannot get a consistent answer on what rule changes are in effect, then I would not play with that group either.

2. You have terrible luck with RPG groups. Both tragically and, to an extent, hilariously bad from the posts I have read. If you want a sane game for an extended weekend and can schedule time in Michigan get ahold of me. I'll let you know when I have a free weekend from work and one of the three weekly game groups I run will happily do a one-shot two-or-three-day campaign with you. We're pretty hospitable. You'll be able to crash on a couch. About 1/3 of my 12-15 players (adding the groups together) were originally met through the internet. So it won't exactly be a new thing for us.

It is not a problem specifically about AoOs or even about this one DM / game. They are just an example of something that is particularly frustrating because it seems so arbitrary and ambiguous, and when trying to play a straight 3e fighter I really need to know the nuts and bolts of how the combat system works to stay relevant.
I am trying out several new groups at the moment, and all of them have numerous house rules that are not stated up front. It is annoying, but also makes it hard for me to play as a lot of them ban or severely restrict aspects of my character for seemingly no reason. I have been part of worse groups in the past, where DMs would just add abilities to enemies or remove them from players on the fly, but I can't recall a single GM that has actually followed a more or less RAW game (or even RAW + Stated house rules) since the first serious campaign I was in back in '96.

Michigan is a bit out of the way for me, but if I am ever in the area I will keep you in mind :)

[Knaight]

I am using "mother may I / magic tea party" as short hand for rules that are completely arbitrary or inconsistent as I have seen those terms used on these forums numerous times. If the phrase offends you I won't use it.

They're deliberately dismissive terms (particularly the second), often aimed at rules light games. As such, they tend to come across about as well as "roll-player".

[Socratov]

If it helps, yes it's normal, yes it's frequent that people forget that some of their rules are houserules.

Well, for a quite popular card game in the Netherlands, about every family has it's own set of rules for the game. It's so bad, that before playing, I always ask to negotiate about the rules first. And before you ask, yes it is negotiation, since we actually try to find the most comfortable (i.e. most like our usual) set of rules to play by. If anything, it trains you in negotiation form a fairly young age...

Oh, and by the way, certain card games in my country have multiple location based or family based variants (though less numerous then the example above).