Ethics of rules lawyering

[Quietus]

Here's the situation : In a game that I play in, there's been any number of times where the rules are simply not followed, and I've yet to say anything about them. For example - the Spell Point variant is in use. Think psionics, but with spells, and you can spend more than your caster level's worth of points on a single spell, you just can't raise its effective level beyond what you could normally cast. So a wizard's fireball always costs 5 spell points, at a baseline. Level 7 wizard's fireball is still 5 spell points, still does 5d6, and they can spend 1 additional point per each additional d6 they want to do, up to what their caster level would allow. They can also put a +1 metamagic on this, so they could be spending up to 9 spell points. Their spells prepared for a day is effectively their spells known list for that day.

The group I run with? Yeah, that's too much for them. All their spells are automatically run at full power, at no spell point cost. Even more frustratingly, their spells known list isn't even limited to their spellbook; They can cast any spell on the sor/wiz list, any time, by paying the minimum spell point cost.


So, here's my point of discussion; What would you do in this situation? I've chosen not to say anything to the group, as I'm too new, and this group in particular is already terrible at optimizing. Fireballing everything is plan A, and adding metamagic to that is plan B. If those fail, plan C is having the melee guys that aren't already dead hit it with sticks. Correcting them on the rules won't improve anything, their tactics will remain more or less the same, but they'd run out of spells faster, and the other players would likely have less fun because they'd actually have to do the book work of selecting their spells for the day, and remaining limited by that.

What would you do in this situation? Would you Lawfully insist on at least telling the DM that they seem to be somewhat mistaken on how spell points work, or would you Chaotically choose not to trod on people's fun if it isn't going to improve anything? Why aren't you helping that turtle on its back, citizen?

[Thefurmonger]

Are they cheeting? As in do they know the rules and just not care?

Or do they think they are doing it right?

[Quietus]

Pretty sure they think they're doing it right.

[Shenanigans]

Are they cheeting? As in do they know the rules and just not care?

Or do they think they are doing it right?

Yeah, that seems like the big question to me.

If they are just doing it this way for fun, then you might be out of luck. However, if they don't know the rules, and think they're doing it right, you might have a chance. Either way, the DM should be your first chat.

[thompur]

If your fun is not being impinged upon, and everybody else is having a good time, I'd say, let it go. If you are getting frustrated, or the DM is, talk to the DM alone, after the game. He/She may not realise the problem, or has already been compensating for it.

[akma]

Talk to the DM in private.
And if I were him, after a few fights I would put a creature that is immune to fire in a very obvious way (probably fire elementenal).

[kamikasei]

Well, does it affect you directly (are you a caster, and feel bad benefiting from these errors/houserules)? Is it a problem for you? Or is it just that you're bothered by seeing the rules misunderstood (a feeling I can sympathize with)?

I'd suggest just talking to the DM and saying, hey, I think you guys may either be misunderstanding the rules or playing with houserules I'm not familiar with; it's not an issue, if you guys are happy playing this way it's fine by me, just thought I should flag it to you in case it became a problem later.

If the group aren't really optimizing then I'd view it as just a courtesy to let the DM know that an unforseen interaction may blow up in his face, but otherwise treat it as "this group has some houserules, they enjoy them, they're not a problem for me, but they should be aware that they are houserules to head off future confusion".

Personally I'd get stressed out pretty quickly if rules were consistently being ignored without any notice that houserules were in place, because it'd leave me unsure what I could do. So I'd say just note any serious breaks from RAW during play and mention them to the DM afterwards, emphasizing that you don't want to enforce RAW on the others, but just to make sure you know whether something works differently at this table than you had thought.

[Tukka]

I don't see any problem with pointing out the discrepancy between the rules and the game that's being played. It's ultimately up to the DM/group to decide what they want the rules to be. You'd just be giving them more info to base the decision on.

How many spellcasters are there in your group? If everybody is a spellcaster, then I guess they might be happy with things the way they are, even if the challenge level is a bit lame ... but I imagine the melee types may not be as happy with the situation? Maybe they just aren't speaking up because they don't realize the rule-breaking that's going on.

Or maybe someone would like to play a melee character but feels like he can't, because playing a fireball hurling wizard seems just so much more effective. Pointing out the rules that bring the spellcasters somewhat back into line may help affect this.

And just because they have a simplistic blaster mindset now, doesn't mean they can't ever change it ever. Pointing out that there can be a deeper level of tactical gameplay to be enjoyed may be appealing to some of them.

I'd at least bring it up, but if everyone is heavily resistant to playing the game it is "supposed" to be played, then just drop it.

[Tyger]

Just want to second (third? fourth?) the suggestion that step one is decide if its an issue you want to take to task, and step two is to talk to the DM first. The DM may well be aware of this, and may be using it anyway.

Our group uses the spell point system, and uses the basic rules you are using as well - i.e. a level 3 spell costs 5 points, and casts at your caster level without any extra spell points spent. The spell points granted are exactly equal to the spells ordinarily available (under the normal Vancian system), so the only reason to add the extra spell point cost to "power up" a spell to what you'd normally cast it as is to pay for the increased flexibility of the spell point system - which we don't see as a problem.

Granted, we use the MM rules as they are written - you can't meta-magic a spell without a) paying the extra points and b) being able to cast a spell of that level.

[Quietus]

I just want to point out, guys, I'm not looking for ADVICE on whether or not to approach them, or how to do so. I've already decided I won't, because while my Rules Lawyer Senses tingle whenever they're Doing It Wrong, it doesn't really affect my fun, and calling them on it would make their fun go down. I'm just looking for people's opinions on what they would do in a similar situation, and hoping something interesting will spawn out of that.

[kamikasei]

I just want to point out, guys, I'm not looking for ADVICE on whether or not to approach them, or how to do so. I've already decided I won't, because while my Rules Lawyer Senses tingle whenever they're Doing It Wrong, it doesn't really affect my fun, and calling them on it would make their fun go down. I'm just looking for people's opinions on what they would do in a similar situation, and hoping something interesting will spawn out of that.

I don't think this is necessarily true (though it may be true in this specific case, of course). You don't have to insist they play by the RAW (VAW, variant-as-written?), just let them know that they're not doing so now. It's possible that they may feel obliged to play by the standard variant even if they find it less fun out of some sense of propriety, or they may feel stupid and annoyed at discovering they'd made a mistake; but depending on the group and your Diplomacy check, it's also possible (and, by the sounds of it, desirable) that they might laugh it off and agree to note when they prefer a houserule to the version in the books so that you have peace of mind on what the rules are that your character operates under.

[Gabe the Bard]

Ideally, I think rules lawyering should always be reserved for before or after the games session. Arguing over the way something is worded in a rulebook, or even what we think the designers may have intended with a rule, isn't the best way to spend time during a session.

With that said, our group has certainly gotten into some heavy rules lawyering and debating during sessions, and it's always slowed down our games a lot whenever it happened. Personally, I'm trying to be less of a rules lawyer, except for keeping a lookout for things that I might be doing wrong personally.

But I'll admit that it's hard for me, because part of the enjoyment I get from the game is being absorbed in the game world. And it would be harder to do that if I imagine my character as having a finite number of spells, due to the limits of his personal power, while the guy next to me is playing like he has a game genie plugged into the cartridge.

[valadil]

What would you do in this situation? Would you Lawfully insist on at least telling the DM that they seem to be somewhat mistaken on how spell points work, or would you Chaotically choose not to trod on people's fun if it isn't going to improve anything? Why aren't you helping that turtle on its back, citizen?

I'd privately talk to the GM and check if he knows those rules are not being run as written. I'd also ask if he wanted to fix that and if he wanted help with rules. You shouldn't impose on the person's game, but you should give them the chance to take your help.

[Quietus]

Ideally, I think rules lawyering should always be reserved for before or after the games session. Arguing over the way something is worded in a rulebook, or even what we think the designers may have intended with a rule, isn't the best way to spend time during a session.

With that said, our group has certainly gotten into some heavy rules lawyering and debating during sessions, and it's always slowed down our games a lot whenever it happened. Personally, I'm trying to be less of a rules lawyer, except for keeping a lookout for things that I might be doing wrong personally.

But I'll admit that it's hard for me, because part of the enjoyment I get from the game is being absorbed in the game world. And it would be harder to do that if I imagine my character as having a finite number of spells, due to the limits of his personal power, while the guy next to me is playing like he has a game genie plugged into the cartridge.

I agree with.. basically everything you say here. I wouldn't bring up a rules dispute in the middle of the game as anything more than a five-second "Shouldn't this have this effect?" deal. The DM can make an on-the-spot ruling, which I go with, despite it always having been to my detriment in these games.. like a damage-reduction based tank abruptly discovering that his DR can't reduce damage below 1. That one got repealed later after a game, but I wasn't going to argue the matter right then. The one time I've brought up something more significant was something that would have been *very* bad for my party.. a class ability that makes a creature not die as long as it's in frenzy, on something that frenzies as long as there's targets to kill. Thankfully it hadn't had enough class levels for that.. but I'm getting off track.

My one saving grace here, I'd say, is that I'm not playing a spellcaster. If I was, I'd have probably brought it up to the DM just so I knew what I was working with.. if they have some unique ability that I didn't know about 'cause I joined the group later, or something.

[Crow]

If these guys are low-Op, why do you even care? Seriously, you need to sit back and realize that it's JUST A GAME. If this is how they like to play it, and you don't like it, leave.

It certainly doesn't seem to be breaking the game. The rules weren't handed down to Moses from on high, so if it were me, I would just chill on it.

[Quietus]

If these guys are low-Op, why do you even care? Seriously, you need to sit back and realize that it's JUST A GAME. If this is how they like to play it, and you don't like it, leave.

It certainly doesn't seem to be breaking the game. The rules weren't handed down to Moses from on high, so if it were me, I would just chill on it.

As noted in my "I've already decided not to say something to the GM" statements, I agree. I assume that the aggressive wording in the first paragraph was rhetorical?

[Crow]

As noted in my "I've already decided not to say something to the GM" statements, I agree. I assume that the aggressive wording in the first paragraph was rhetorical?

Yeah, sorry.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd tell them, out of game so it wouldn't disrupt the session. They can keep playing the way they did anyway, that's fine - it's just that straying from the rules should be a conscious decision, not a result of misinterpreting them. Otherwise they will cause confusion and/or get laughed at later, when they play with other people who follow the actual rules. I'm doing them a favour by pointing out their mistake now, rather than letting them learn of it later in less favorable circumstances.

[Tyger]

We've tried, in our group, to restrict our rules discussions to in between sessions, and have created an online forum for our game, so that we can make game updates and discuss potential rules changes therein.

Its worked pretty well, so long as all the parties remember that its not personal and not attacking (which has happened in the past). We recently had a rather lengthy and convoluted discussion on the mechanics of tripping (resulting from our half-giant psy-warrior tripping a huge air elemental - while it was in whirlwind form!) that lasted maybe three or four pages of discussion, got heated, and then achieved a consensus that was amendable to everyone involved.

Short version - we let the DM make a call at the table, with maybe a couple minutes of discussion to make sure the rule in question is actually understood, then if we need to do greater discussions, we go to the forum in between sessions. Works for us.

[Another_Poet]

It sounds like it is accepted within the group.

If you are a caster, and would benefit from this, politely ask the DM if s/he intended for it to be that way; if so, start doing it yourself.

If you are not a caster, and are overshadowed because of this, politely let the DM know that his/her allowing this leaves your class behind the power curve, and ask if you could get a concession to buff you up and keep you in line with them. (I would have a specific request in mind when having this conversation, e.g. a legacy weapon, ToB manoeuvres, something along those lines.)

If neither of the above applies then let them have their fun and don't sweat it.

(In other words I'd handle it in a Lawful Neutral way: handle it in an orderly and respectful fashion if it affects me, and ignore it if it doesn't.)

ap

[Quietus]

Actually, it's kind of funny, since my character is a duergar dungeoncrashing fighter//barbarian (gestalt, loads of bonus feats as well, which I've wasted approximately half of).. and I've been asked to tone down on how often I use my various class abilities. Apparently pushing almost 50 damage on a good Bull Rush damage roll was too much. Even with their casters having "Spellbook = full spell list = spells prepared", I apparently stepped on too many toes with my melee character. That heavily factored into why I wasn't going to be saying anything. I'm considering it now, though, 'cause apparently the next game is going to be one of either Oriental themed, or Drow. If they go Oriental, I'm gonna go with a Monk build focusing on stunning fist applications, but if they go Drow, I'll be using Wizard. I'll probably bring it up then, to see where that stands.

[Loren]

Interesting ideas, eh. How about make an archivist and crack the game open. What's that, I can case any spell in the game? at earlier levels than everyone else? And it will cost the same or less.

The "best" thing about being the only one knowledgable about char op in a game is you can make very shiny characters. The down side is you're being a dirty cheat. If you play it right it can bring up the level of the game as it exposes people to new possiblities and may cause people to return to the books to find new tricks or figure out how they got so badly out classed. Alternatively, they could write you off as a munchkin and stop inviting you out.

[Tyndmyr]

Here's the situation : In a game that I play in, there's been any number of times where the rules are simply not followed, and I've yet to say anything about them. For example - the Spell Point variant is in use. Think psionics, but with spells, and you can spend more than your caster level's worth of points on a single spell, you just can't raise its effective level beyond what you could normally cast. So a wizard's fireball always costs 5 spell points, at a baseline. Level 7 wizard's fireball is still 5 spell points, still does 5d6, and they can spend 1 additional point per each additional d6 they want to do, up to what their caster level would allow. They can also put a +1 metamagic on this, so they could be spending up to 9 spell points. Their spells prepared for a day is effectively their spells known list for that day.

First, spell points don't act exactly like this. The additional points for extra d6? You don't do that. Fireball does exactly normal damage as if it were cast as a usual level 3 spell. d6/level, up to the damage cap. No extra charge.

Otherwise you are correct. And yes, it does increase wizard power and makes sorcs utterly pointless.

The group I run with? Yeah, that's too much for them. All their spells are automatically run at full power, at no spell point cost.

That's the correct way to run it. Spell points does not utilize the PP agumentation bit.

Even more frustratingly, their spells known list isn't even limited to their spellbook; They can cast any spell on the sor/wiz list, any time, by paying the minimum spell point cost.

Now, this is a bit crazy. Point out that this is not legit, and that the spell preparation is still required. The SRD or Unearthed Arcana might be of assistance here. If you don't wish to sound like you're telling them you're doing it wrong, say you're used to doing it the way in the book, and ask if the way they're playing is a house rule. Claim you just want to be sure you're not doing it wrong.

This makes it sound a lot more casual, and avoids sounding accusatory. Don't want that in a new group, and hey, it IS good to find out what they house rule.

So, here's my point of discussion; What would you do in this situation? I've chosen not to say anything to the group, as I'm too new, and this group in particular is already terrible at optimizing. Fireballing everything is plan A, and adding metamagic to that is plan B. If those fail, plan C is having the melee guys that aren't already dead hit it with sticks. Correcting them on the rules won't improve anything, their tactics will remain more or less the same, but they'd run out of spells faster, and the other players would likely have less fun because they'd actually have to do the book work of selecting their spells for the day, and remaining limited by that.

Preparing spells is somewhat book work. However, in practice, most people use a preferred list anyway, and tend to prepare the same things every day. So, it's a one time deal.

And it avoids the flipping through books to find out what (rare spell x) does to some degree.

What would you do in this situation? Would you Lawfully insist on at least telling the DM that they seem to be somewhat mistaken on how spell points work, or would you Chaotically choose not to trod on people's fun if it isn't going to improve anything? Why aren't you helping that turtle on its back, citizen?

I'd try to play by the official rules. If DMing, I'd simply announce that I'd "discovered" the official rules, and we'll be using those in the future.

[Quietus]

First, spell points don't act exactly like this. The additional points for extra d6? You don't do that. Fireball does exactly normal damage as if it were cast as a usual level 3 spell. d6/level, up to the damage cap. No extra charge.

Actually, they do.

One balancing factor is the cost for casters to increase the damage dealt by their spells. This cost helps to maintain balance between spells of different level. If you didn’t have to pay more for a 9d6 lightning bolt than for a 5d6 lightning bolt (a 3rd-level spell costing 5 spell points), then the 9d6 lightning bolt would cost barely more than half as much as a 9d6 cone of cold (a 5th-level spell costing 9 spell points), even though both spells deal equal damage.

But yeah. I agree, it makes wizards pretty silly. Though, if the same rules applied to Sorcerers (casting any spell from their list at-will).. sorcerers get slightly more spell points, don't they? Hm.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, they do.

Never actually noticed that before, probably due to it being in the "metagame analysis" section, as opposed to the rule description area, which is a bit odd. It's referred to lower, though.

This makes the head hurt, though, as in some cases, it gets into very odd results with regards to the effect of a spell being dependant upon when you could cast it. This could result in wierd stuff when you gain access to spells via PrC or feat.

For further headaches, note that Sanctum Spell meshes with spell points in a rather silly way. All spells now cost 2 less spell points to cast.

But yeah. I agree, it makes wizards pretty silly. Though, if the same rules applied to Sorcerers (casting any spell from their list at-will).. sorcerers get slightly more spell points, don't they? Hm.

Enough for one more spell of highest available level. Not that amazing, IMO. I'm not a big fan of the system, as it further encourages novas, and gives wizards further flexibility, which is certainly not great for balance.

Now, if thats the way they play, fine...but it'll only work so long as nobody ever tries optimizing.

[Quietus]

In this group.. optimization is done in the form of the DM giving out abilities and loot, mostly. Wizards cast fireball, rogues sometimes sneak and almost never get to sneak attack, fighters/barbarians/paladins run up and roll attack rolls. Clerics heal, unless they're gestalt (we are), in which case they're "Other side of gestalt, but with out-of-combat healing spells". I'm by far the most rules-savvy individual in the group, they rely on a massive database the DM has made to look things up. I prefer to stick to my less expansive list of "Crap I have in my head, including roughly 98% of all the rules I'll ever need". It's rare that I don't know a particular rule.. I just tend to make my obsessive knowledge base known to a DM, and let them call on me if they wish to make use of it, or if it's taking a long time to look things up.

::Edit:: If we play the DM's idea for a Drow game next, I'm going to be going buff/debuff/utility caster, actually... but I won't be going all-out "god/batman" style. Just picking things like Haste/Slow over Fireball/Lightning Bolt... maybe get one or two nice attack spells, but nothing too crazy. No every-day Commune spells or sleeping in rope tricks every night.

[Tyndmyr]

Personally, I find it very difficult to play in a situation where a group doesn't really know the rules, and thus, isn't playing by them. They probably have a common understanding between them, but as a newcomer, there are going to be a lot of difference in understanding between you and them, and there won't really be any warning in advance. Can be frustrating.

Depends how much you want a game, I guess.