I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules.
In his campaign, he insists on rolling stabilization for every single monster we knock unconscious. In one game, we were actually backtracking to coup de grace the goblin dogs so we could speed things up. When we raided the goblin fort....things got worse.
In his game, this is bad enough. But in my games, he'll question my rules, and look up every little condition. I have to say, "I don't care, this is how we're playing" to get him to stop, and he often checks it anyways.
The thing is, he doesn't just rules-lawyer to help the party. In fact, he often lawyers against the party, saying you technically apply energy resistance to every attack in scorching ray, not the total.
The rules are getting really constricting, and I'm wondering if anybody has any advice on how to deal with this player (or if I'm doing something wrong).
Sorry if this is in the wrong subforum.
As the others say...have a nice talk with him.
Though I have a question....while yes it is annoying rolling stabilize checks for each and every creature...etc. You got to ask yourself how consistent you are with your ruling? I mean it would annoy me to no end if say Energy Resistence worked on way...
Not saying you are doing it wrong...just saying it might be easier for you to deal with if you can walk a mile in his shoes.
Check with the other players if they're bugged by him, too. Then talk to him privately. If he continues his ways, please ask him to leave.
The other players have expressed irritation. The trouble is, my selection of gamers here is extremely limited, and he's my brother. I don't think asking him to leave will really work out.
Besides the rules-lawyering, he's the most experienced gamer, and a great roleplayer. He just has a problem with my bending the rules. We even have a 'whatever' game, which has very loose canon. He still kind of sighs when I don't follow the book.
Thanks for the help, though. If there aren't any other solutions, I guess I'll just have to have a talk with him and ask him to cut it out.
EDIT: Ah, I somehow missed the 'have a talk with him' part.
I'm careful to follow my own rules. Even the ones I think were a bit dumb (like escaping a grapple taking a move action).
He's your brother? Just kick his butt, let Mom sort it out.
I'd make it a house rule that rules discussion are held after a session, or during a break. Emphasize the need to run a smoother, faster game, while also stressing that in the future, you'll be taking the rules a bit more seriously as well.
He's your brother? Just kick his butt, let Mom sort it out.
I'd make it a house rule that rules discussion are held after a session, or during a break. Emphasize the need to run a smoother, faster game, while also stressing that in the future, you'll be taking the rules a bit more seriously as well.
I should mention that he's my older brother, and I'm fairly certain he has homicidal tendencies. :P
I like this idea. It could work, and it makes sense. I'll try it next session, and see how it goes (though I'll have to make sure he doesn't think it's about him).
Thanks, guys. If it doesn't work, I'll talk to him.
Nyquil and a stick, problem solved.
Nyquil and a stick, problem solved.
Smurf Cleaver is confused, but his peaceful smurfy nature prevents him from attempting to clarify.
Some thoughts...
If a player asked about stability checks for monsters I would say that I am keeping track of all the monster's stats including stability when it needs to be tracked. I would also tell him that as the DM I don't necessarily follow the PC rules for all monster activities because I frankly don't have the time nor inclination. That means I don't roll hit points for every monster, I don't determine skill ranks for every monster and I don't tailor feats for them. Player Character activities are generally not appropriate for monsters, period. I may have done stability checks for less than a dozen NPCs in my entire GM career, and I certainly wouldn't start doing them because a player thought I should.
Your brother is right about scorching ray. It might be possible that it would reduce his rules lawyering a bit if you did a bit of boning up on spells and abilities that your monsters use in combat. I try my best to fully understand anything that my monsters might do so that I don't have to look them up or be challenged by players during the game.
When I AM unsure of something, I frequently will just say "OK, we'll do it this way for this encounter and I'll research it and get back to you after the session so that we don't lose game time on it." Then I make a note and be sure to do that research.
I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules.
This is exactly what a GM should do. . .?
In his campaign, he insists on rolling stabilization for every single monster we knock unconscious. In one game, we were actually backtracking to coup de grace the goblin dogs so we could speed things up. When we raided the goblin fort....things got worse.
Well, are you using channeled energy for healing? If so, it's pretty easy to bring a goblin or two back to life. . . if they're in the area. If a healed goblin tries to get away to alert an unaware group of goblins farther along in the adventure, you could end up fighting a big group. It depends on the adventure I guess.
In his game, this is bad enough. But in my games, he'll question my rules, and look up every little condition. I have to say, "I don't care, this is how we're playing" to get him to stop, and he often checks it anyways.
The thing is, he doesn't just rules-lawyer to help the party. In fact, he often lawyers against the party, saying you technically apply energy resistance to every attack in scorching ray, not the total.
A rules lawyer isn't always a negative thing. On one hand, you have someone who is willing to look up rules at the drop of a hat. That saves you some time if a truly ambiguous question pops up. You could potentially delegate some GMing authority to him. . . like checking the PC's character sheets for correctness, handling some monster's hp/status in combat, etc.
On the other hand, it sounds like he's having a hard time taking off the GM hat. That's a common problem -- I have the same issue as well (: Just let him know before the game that in your game, you're the Game Master. If he has a question or comment about your GMing or use of the rules, tell him to take it up with you after the game. Otherwise, discussion about the game rules are unnecessary -- you ARE the game rules (:
The rules are getting really constricting, and I'm wondering if anybody has any advice on how to deal with this player (or if I'm doing something wrong).
The general push of 3.X/PF has been to make concrete mechanics that cover a wide range of situations. The problem with this is if you're unfamiliar with the game, you're going to have some trouble. It takes a while for a GM to become comfortable with the rules. If you're new to PF/3.X, it might take a while for you to adjust.
I'm not new, but I don't know conditions and the like by heart. My priority is mostly to keep the game going. While rolling stabilization might be a good idea, it really drags on after the first five mooks are down. If there is a Channel, I'll often just decide, by averages, how many are back up. Specifics, such as how many hp exactly, rarely make a difference when the party's mid-to-high level.
And yes, I know that my ruling on energy resistance was wrong (hence the 'technically'). However, it seemed like a fairly minor change that would keep the caster's player, who is not a veteran, from getting bored. My brother is the only real diehard player, and while the other two don't dislike the game, it's important to keep their characters fun (and not make them near-useless in an encounter unless that's the point).
I am not adverse to killing characters, of course, but if a character dies, it shouldn't be after five rounds dealing about 4-8 damage.
That being said, I'm not really aiming to debate a house rule--no matter how dubious it may be. :P
Think of this from his perspective...he has expectations of how the game runs based on his knowledge of the rules. If you start changing the mechanics of the game on the fly (which is your prerogative), then he doesn't know what to expect and that can be unsettling.
Maybe make up a list of house rules and provide them to your players? That way you can run things your way and he knows what to expect? Good luck!
He just has a problem with my bending the rules.
You are not bending the rules. You are MAKING the rules. Rule #1 for any RPG: apply the RAW exactly when you like to.
Rolling stabilization for monsters is just pointless, especially if the party says that they coupe de grace anything after the actual fight - it just makes no difference. It's like making a roll for every commoner of a city if he catches the flu today in mid summer (likeliness about 0.001 percent, yet you can still roll for it, eh?)
Let him take a look on a system where the rules fit on one page like InSpectres and tell me about the expression of his face.
Ok, I'll be that guy.
I feel your brother's pain.
Seriously, it's all good and fine when people have house rules. Some make the game go faster, some make it more fun.
And as long as you tell me what the rule changes are ahead of time I can do great with it. But when the DM is sketchey on how things are actually ment to work (As in you saying you don't know the conditions) then is you making it up a house rule? or did you just screw it up?
We have books of rules, thats how the company makes money. The rules are there so when we sit down to play, we are all playing the same game. Just "Winging it" IMHO is not a good thing.
Now having said that, if you read a rule and don't agree with it, then by all means change it. thats rule 0.
The issue I have and it sounds like he does is DMs that don't bother to learn the actual rule, then when we/he go out of our way to look it up are treated like he did something wrong.
|
Ok, I'll be that guy.
I feel your brother's pain.
Seriously, it's all good and fine when people have house rules. Some make the game go faster, some make it more fun.
And as long as you tell me what the rule changes are ahead of time I can do great with it. But when the DM is sketchey on how things are actually ment to work (As in you saying you don't know the conditions) then is you making it up a house rule? or did you just screw it up?
We have books of rules, thats how the company makes money. The rules are there so when we sit down to play, we are all playing the same game. Just "Winging it" IMHO is not a good thing.
Now having said that, if you read a rule and don't agree with it, then by all means change it. thats rule 0.
The issue I have and it sounds like he does is DMs that don't bother to learn the actual rule, then when we/he go out of our way to look it up are treated like he did something wrong.
I'll second this guy. Now, I'm absolutely a die-hard rules lawyer, but I also frequently DM, so I certainly understand the narrative or functional need for changes. But the whole "DM is always right" nonsense is about as believable as "the customer is always right". Simply not the case, especially since the DM isn't paying me.
So basically, there are good and bad cases of rules-lawyering vs. DM fiat, and in my experience, the biggest identifier is how transparent you make it. For instance, when I DM, I might decide I don't like the 3.5 Grapple rules (I don't), and that I'll be using something different. If that's the case, those new rules will always be distributed to the players as quickly as possible, hopefully at the beginning of the campaign. If I mess up and forget, it's probably better to clue the PCs in on the fact that there is a kraken soon by handing out new grapple rules (after a discussion) than it is to mention the new rules during the fight.
I have a buddy who DMs who does this, and it drives me up the wall. And he houserules in the "rocks fall, you die" category. Basically, here is a truism: whenever the DM uses a houserule to negatively effect a player without a hit roll or save, that is bad.
So maybe your brother has a point: are you explaining what the new rules are and why well before they come into play? Are you consulting the players to at least determine how popular your rulings are?
I play with a DM who does not understand the rules as well as I do, and I have to say it causes a heck of a lot of friction. So either you are making fine rulings and consulting your players (your brother needs to cool it) or you are just revising reality whenever you get an idea to (in which case you are going to have to become a lawyer yourself).
I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules.
In his campaign, he insists on rolling stabilization for every single monster we knock unconscious. In one game, we were actually backtracking to coup de grace the goblin dogs so we could speed things up. When we raided the goblin fort....things got worse.
In his game, this is bad enough. But in my games, he'll question my rules, and look up every little condition. I have to say, "I don't care, this is how we're playing" to get him to stop, and he often checks it anyways.
The thing is, he doesn't just rules-lawyer to help the party. In fact, he often lawyers against the party, saying you technically apply energy resistance to every attack in scorching ray, not the total.
The rules are getting really constricting, and I'm wondering if anybody has any advice on how to deal with this player (or if I'm doing something wrong).
Sorry if this is in the wrong subforum.
He is worse than me. If the monster is bleeding out I just say its dead unless it is an important NPC. The players are just going to kill it anyway. I would ask him why he goes through all the trouble.
I can't comment on him looking up the other rules because some rules do matter to me more than others, and I am addicted to consistency.I think a good rules lawyer should be neutral. Otherwise I would not trust their rulings.
I would have to know which rules he is checking you on.
In any event if you are going to deviate from the rules you should just write them in as house rules, but at the same time he should respect your call on the issue if you call it a certain way, and then discuss it after the game. That way the game is not bogged down, and you will probably be more likely to listen to him.
Check with the other players if they're bugged by him, too. Then talk to him privately. If he continues his ways, please ask him to leave.The other players have expressed irritation. The trouble is, my selection of gamers here is extremely limited, and he's my brother. I don't think asking him to leave will really work out.
Besides the rules-lawyering, he's the most experienced gamer, and a great roleplayer. He just has a problem with my bending the rules. We even have a 'whatever' game, which has very loose canon. He still kind of sighs when I don't follow the book.
Thanks for the help, though. If there aren't any other solutions, I guess I'll just have to have a talk with him and ask him to cut it out.EDIT: Ah, I somehow missed the 'have a talk with him' part.
I'm careful to follow my own rules. Even the ones I think were a bit dumb (like escaping a grapple taking a move action).
It seems the issues is down to playstyle. You are a "rule of fun" guy, and he is more by the book. He should let you run your game the way you want to run your game. He is welcome to not play when you DM if it is annoying him that much.
If he is so adamant about the rules as written, please don't hesitate to point him to rule #0 located on page 9 of the core rules titled: "The most important rule"
I'm this guy, and I'll be the first to admit it.
The rules are there for a reason, to maintain balance between monsters and PCs and the game as a whole. If you're playing a session with those less knowledgeable about the rules than you are, I feel you have an obligation to explain the rules correctly to promote proper, balanced play.
There is nothing worse than taking a feat or progressing in a direction that is made entirely useless by a DM who doesn't know the rules.
For example ...
I was developing a rogue sniper and had taken Precise Shot as a feat. Around the same time, another player had picked up a ranged weapon. The DM wasn't imposing the -4 to hit for ranged into melee when that player attacked. This inconsistency to the rules made my feat absolutely useless and a waste of a feat. Yes, he was irked, but that's how the game should be played. I advocate the rules whether it's in the party's best interest or not, otherwise the game's just not fun.
This is just one example of the plethora of inconsistencies I've had to 'rules lawyer' over the course of 3 months of weekly sessions with newer players. It's not rules lawyering when your intention is to teach the proper rules. It happens in every game you play, there's just MANY more rules to learn in a game such as this.
As far as stabilizing checks for monsters go, it all depends on how realistic you want the game to be, but my rule is if it applies to player characters, it should apply to monsters and vice versa. Most monsters ARE left for dead, unless coup de graced, and channeling without selective channeling should, indeed, heal dying monsters.
Delegate.
Okay, for the parts where he sighs, you need to have the talk about who's the DM and how he can run the game how he wants and you'll respect it, but you have to have equal respect to run the game how you want.
But, for something like the stabilization aspect, delegate. He's worried about X, Y, & Z? Give him the limited authority over X, Y, & Z. It can be something of a win-win. He gets to fiddle with whatever minutia he demands compliance with so he feels satisfied. It's at no loss to your time or mental energy, but it is to his, making him less likely to fret over every call you make. He feels you've conceded, you've gotten him out of your hair, and the other players can mostly focus on what they still want to do.
I've done this sort of thing in various different circumstances. It's very untraditional, but it works amazingly well.
I'm this guy, and I'll be the first to admit it.
The rules are there for a reason, to maintain balance between monsters and PCs and the game as a whole. If you're playing a session with those less knowledgeable about the rules than you are, I feel you have an obligation to explain the rules correctly to promote proper, balanced play.
There is nothing worse than taking a feat or progressing in a direction that is made entirely useless by a DM who doesn't know the rules.
For example ...
I was developing a rogue sniper and had taken Precise Shot as a feat. Around the same time, another player had picked up a ranged weapon. The DM wasn't imposing the -4 to hit for ranged into melee when that player attacked. This inconsistency to the rules made my feat absolutely useless and a waste of a feat. Yes, he was irked, but that's how the game should be played. I advocate the rules whether it's in the party's best interest or not, otherwise the game's just not fun.
This is just one example of the plethora of inconsistencies I've had to 'rules lawyer' over the course of 3 months of weekly sessions with newer players. It's not rules lawyering when your intention is to teach the proper rules. It happens in every game you play, there's just MANY more rules to learn in a game such as this.
As far as stabilizing checks for monsters go, it all depends on how realistic you want the game to be, but my rule is if it applies to player characters, it should apply to monsters and vice versa. Most monsters ARE left for dead, unless coup de graced, and channeling without selective channeling should, indeed, heal dying monsters.
You have valid points. He should have allowed you to trade your feat out if he is not going to enforce the penalty, and if the PC's don't selective channel then you should track dying, but not dead creatures.
I think the OP should do as I suggest and just have official house rules so everyone is on the same page.
I think the OP should do as I suggest and just have official house rules so everyone is on the same page.
This.^
Really this is all I ever ask. If you want X to work some way that is not normal, fine, thats great. Just tell me ahead of time.
Really it comes down to..
DM thinks things out and decides he wants to change a rule = Great, please do.
DM can't be bothered to learn how it actually works so makes it up on the spot, then gets pissy when I mention thats not right = No thank you.
This begs the question ...
Which is worse?
1) Reviewing the rules mid-game on occasion when playing with newer players, so the game is played properly now, and in the future, in an effort to maintain the balance the game designers and testers worked so hard to achieve?
-OR-
2) Having a newer DM review ALL the rules and make a list of house rules that can easily break numerous other mechanics out of a lack of experience with the game system.
I'll take the former every time.
@ wraithstrike - The DM began imposing the penalty, because he was unaware of the penalty in the first place!
|
I am definitely a rules light GM, and I am ok with the GM's I play with to make decision on the fly and GM the way they want. As long as its fun for everyone, its all good. I like GM's to be different, as that is what makes the game interesting and exciting, because it is different every time you play.
My favorite GM of all time as a guy that was just outrageous in the things he created, and he liked to run very high level adventures. He was defintely a bit loose with the rules, but it was just a lot of fun, because it was crazy. I lost several characters in his campaign, but that was part of the fun.
So when I am running a game, I try to be up front with the players and say that I run a rules light campaign, but I do have all my house rules documented prior to the start of the campaign. If I make a ruling during the course of the game that is not aligned to the RAW, I make sure that I update it in my house rules. I think that if you are upfront with the type of game that you want to run, you can set expectations of how the session will go.
With all that said, I feel your pain considering that the play in question is your brother. My recommendation is to argue your point over a cold beverage of choice along with a healthy platter of wings and explain what fun means to you, and then ask him to help you run this sort of campaign. Be straight up with him about what the rules mean to you. I would also ask him what he likes about being a rules lawyer, as that will provide some insight into how he has fun in the game. You want to promote good chemistry at the table, and sometimes it involves a bit of give and take. I know that for some folks, they just can't help themselves when it comes to being a rules lawyer. It just totally dives us rules light guys crazy.
1) Reviewing the rules mid-game on occasion when playing with newer players, so the game is played properly now, and in the future, in an effort to maintain the balance the game designers and testers worked so hard to achieve?-OR-
2) Having a newer DM review ALL the rules and make a list of house rules that can easily break numerous other mechanics out of a lack of experience with the game system.
I'll take the former every time.
Or, to spin it in the other direction,
1) Having some know-it-all jerk with control issues breaking up how everyone wants to play the game.
2) Actually culturing trust between the players and the DM.
1) Reviewing the rules mid-game on occasion when playing with newer players, so the game is played properly now, and in the future, in an effort to maintain the balance the game designers and testers worked so hard to achieve?-OR-
2) Having a newer DM review ALL the rules and make a list of house rules that can easily break numerous other mechanics out of a lack of experience with the game system.
I'll take the former every time.
Or, to spin it in the other direction,
1) Having some know-it-all jerk with control issues breaking up how everyone wants to play the game.
2) Actually culturing trust between the players and the DM.
1. The world works a certain way. I don't think the rules lawyer cares to much about how it works, but the sun should rise and set the same every day. I guess the perception can be a know-it-all-jerk, but if the jerk does not know because the DM won't bother to give him a list of rules I really can't blame the jerk.
2. How can you trust what you don't know, and how can you tell the other players to trust someone that you don't trust? It will also cause issues because they take turns DM'ing. You will do something in one DM's game, and suffer for it in DM#2's game. Remember these are new players. If it was someone who knew what the actual rules were it would be easy to remember:
DM 1=RAW
DM 2=houserules
1) Reviewing the rules mid-game on occasion when playing with newer players, so the game is played properly now, and in the future, in an effort to maintain the balance the game designers and testers worked so hard to achieve?-OR-
2) Having a newer DM review ALL the rules and make a list of house rules that can easily break numerous other mechanics out of a lack of experience with the game system.
I'll take the former every time.
Or, to spin it in the other direction,
1) Having some know-it-all jerk with control issues breaking up how everyone wants to play the game.
2) Actually culturing trust between the players and the DM.
That certainly is a spin, and not at all my approach. The idea is to bring up the RAW to give the DM a chance to decide. Hence why 'rules lawyer' was quotations.
When in doubt, a newer DM should use RAW, IMO, since their decision could create many problems down the road.
To the OP ...
If it's disruptive to the game in a negative way, treat it like any other disruption. Have a private discussion about it, and if that doesn't work, ask him to excuse himself.
In our group, if someone does something disruptive to the game after being asked repeatedly to stop, it starts with d6 lightning bolts out of nowhere and progresses to full-blown curses. Eventually, they get the point.
I'm not new, but I don't know conditions and the like by heart. My priority is mostly to keep the game going.
To many the rules as written (RAW) is a balanced system that is fair when adhered to and can be unfair for players when not. So many gamers I know enjoy sticking to RAW and expanding our understanding of it as we play.
As the DM it is typically my responsibility to know the rules and to accurately convey them to my players. I too have another player in the group that is quite rules savy. Often he will bring up rules bits or rules questions during the middle of a combat or other relatively fast-paced part of the game. In my earlier days DMing it was quite a nuisance until I received some solid advice for dealing with such players and I'll pass it along to you now.
The best thing you can do is not to fight a player that enjoys playing the game in thsi way (besides being your brother). Instead utilize his knowledge and skill with the rules. Turn that irritating habit he has into an asset, something positive for the game!
I often set my rules-savy player on a rules fact-finding mission whenever a rules questions pops up mid-game, while I continue running the game! I rely on this player's referencing skills to quickly bring up the correct page and rule. After I reference the rule I make the call and then we run on it, with the understanding that rules debates and discussions occur away from the game table. Tough calls always go in favor of PCs because killing PCs over an incorrect rules call sucks.
Ultimately this accomplishes two things:
(1) It keeps the player busy and allows them to do what they enjoy doing anyways.
(2) You now have somebody that can zero in on rules while you can keep the game running at a fast pace.
The game will run faster and problem player isn't getting shot down but instead is turned into a contributor. The only caveat to doing this being that as DM you must remain the final rules arbiter. So you need to eventually know your stuff. I've seen where a very rules savy player used in this manner became the sole rules arbiter when the DM allowed them to do so. It is the DMs job to learn the rules as best as they can and to judge them fairly and with neutrality IMHO.
Best of luck!
I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules.
Are you sure if he's writing his own rules or just bringing up obscure ones?
In his campaign, he insists on rolling stabilization for every single monster we knock unconscious. In one game, we were actually backtracking to coup de grace the goblin dogs so we could speed things up. When we raided the goblin fort....things got worse.
That's probably being a little pedantic, unless your cleric doesn't have selective channel.
In his game, this is bad enough. But in my games, he'll question my rules, and look up every little condition. I have to say, "I don't care, this is how we're playing" to get him to stop, and he often checks it anyways.
It matters to some builds what the conditions do. Frost bomb and ray of fatigue for example are pretty much built on staggered and fatigued.
Try the "this is how we're going with it now, we'll look it up latter to save gametime" approach." The rule may be important, but its probably not that important right now.
The thing is, he doesn't just rules-lawyer to help the party. In fact, he often lawyers against the party, saying you technically apply energy resistance to every attack in scorching ray, not the total.
I'd be more worried if he was doing the opposite. As it is, he's a walking rule book. Use him.
The rules are getting really constricting, and I'm wondering if anybody has any advice on how to deal with this player (or if I'm doing something wrong).
Since he doesn't seem to be doing anything dishonest I'd try to meet him half way. What helps the monster today may get the party killed tomorrow so playing the game consistently according to the rules can be a big help.
Developer
|
I'm not new, but I don't know conditions and the like by heart.
Buy condition cards. Condition cards are awesome. I don't know how I lived without them.
Also, though it seems less likely in your group, I tend to GM a lot of PFS, and given that many players may want to keep certain foes alive for faction or interrogation I check stabilization for all. Then again, I just roll several d20's at once behind the screen. Hell, if you've got a computer or laptop at the table you can just autoroll it. Less tedious, and then you know. If they leave foes for dead and move on, though, those foes are dead unless the plot indicates otherwise.
Discussing rules is fun, but it really ruins combat.
Just say honestly, "Arguing about the rules isn't fun during melee. If it is important, write it down and we can talk about it after the combat."
|
I will freely admit it. I am a rules lawyer. I have turned out this way because I prefer consistency in my games. It frustrates me to high-hell as a player when a GM decides that "X is too powerful" or "I don't like the way Y works" when they do not have a good understanding of why that makes things balanced. I believe some people have the ability to design a game well, but I do not believe all GMs have this ability. As such, I prefer consistent rules I understand and know from game-to-game.
That being said, when I GM I have one very important rule. If rules-lawyering takes more than a couple of minutes (we all have to look up the damn grapple rules so some leeway needs to be made), then I as a GM will make a call with the express understanding that the next time we play, after I've looked up the real rule, we will play with that rule. Frankly, it's been a reasonably good middle-ground. The fast-and-furious players don't feel like the rules are bogging down the game, and the rules-lawyer types feel that the game maintains its consistency overall.
YMMV.
|
I hate rules-lawyers, as a GM and as a PLayer. They always break down the game and the experience and insist upon rules being correctly used mid-combat. I generally say that i ruled this way, and if they have a problem with that, they can report them after the session ends. If they still insist on b#&+#ing about rules, i send them home. I am a no-nonsense type of guy when it comes to players bothering everybody else.
I am the GM, and what i say goes. Don't think i am some ignorant jerk who feels threatened by the more knowledgeable, I have a fairly comprehensive command over the rules and know most of them by heart...i also have a friend who specializes in conditions, so we are well covered by the rules department.
This debate on rules is an important one in my opinion. The players and the GM need to be on the same page with regard to what rules will be used and not used and what style of play will rule the day.
I am not an experienced player, but it seems to me there are a lot of room for interpretation in this game. There are also a ton of rules that can be overlooked - like the shooting into melee. I think we also overlook the flat footed in the first round rule.
But most importantly, players design their characters based on what they think the rules of play will be. And when the rules turn out to be something different, the character can turn out to be not as effective as the player intended.
It is also important to discuss the style of play. You just answer questions like - will there be a lot of role play and interaction with NPCs. Or will this mostly be about hacking monsters and getting loot. This can also dramatically effect how you want to design your character.
I hate rules-lawyers, as a GM and as a PLayer. They always break down the game and the experience and insist upon rules being correctly used mid-combat. I generally say that i ruled this way, and if they have a problem with that, they can report them after the session ends. If they still insist on b@&&%ing about rules, i send them home. I am a no-nonsense type of guy when it comes to players bothering everybody else.
I am the GM, and what i say goes. Don't think i am some ignorant jerk who feels threatened by the more knowledgeable, I have a fairly comprehensive command over the rules and know most of them by heart...i also have a friend who specializes in conditions, so we are well covered by the rules department.
No we don't "always" do anything. Maybe your incorrect rulings are bothering everyone, and what happens if you get a PC killed?
I do agree that any bickering can wait until the game is over 99% of the time, but I don't like being lumped with those who disrupt games by arguing the entire session. That has nothing to do with being a rules lawyer.
Just as a point of GM advice here, I have been a GM for a long, long time. Longer than I care to remember. I am lucky to be someone who reads fast, has a very high retention of information rate when I do read and best of all, I enjoy reading rules for game systems (I've spent a little time as a game designer myself). So I am one of those geeky types who actually has read the 3.5 grapple rules or the 4e skill challenge rules.
But every now and then I get something wrong. There's just too much to remember. In a recent campaign I messed up a spell, thinking it was a ranged touch attack, when it was just a ranged attack. I was quickly corrected by a player, and I immediately admitted the error and we continued on using the right rule. That's generally what happens.
But on rare occasions I've messed up something central to my encounter design. When that happens, that's when I'll say "OK, let's address that after the encounter, because this encounter was designed with that understanding of the rules and I don't want to try to recalculate the whole thing on the fly. We'll discuss outside of session and if I have it wrong, then we'll do it differently from now on."
Nobody has ever insisted that we do it "right" after that. It's always been "Oh, OK, I get that. Let's go."
|
|
Meet him half way.
Learn and respect the existing rules more, but ask him to ignore the things that don't matter, like a group of kobolds that are bleeding out. Roll for the more important stuff.
Also, if this is your brother, observe him and see if he has OCD or something. Things like this could harm him in life, much more important than PF.
Could be worse, I have a DM that insists on looking up every rule and spell. Even if I read it to him from the book, it doesn't happen until he reads it. It can slow the game down to a crawl. I've restricted my actions in game to ones we all know by heart.
I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules...
Some people think the rules are there to be acutally used at the appropriate times. I can understand his mindset, I don't see it as unreasonable to use the rules when playing the game.
That said, if there are rules your usint that are home brew or rules your NOT using, it is not unreasonable for this (or all) your players to want to know them. If you codify your home rules, simply typing them up in a small rules packet, then I bet your players problems will cease.
He simply wants to know the rules of the game he is playing. If the rules are changed or different from the book, it is not unreasonable for him to want to know what those changes are, is it?
Once you have a home rules packet done, he now has a referance point and can relax knowing the rules he is playing under and that you will enforce those rules consistantly.
Not too much to ask.
Could be worse, I have a DM that insists on looking up every rule and spell. Even if I read it to him from the book, it doesn't happen until he reads it. It can slow the game down to a crawl. I've restricted my actions in game to ones we all know by heart.
I have had players how will read the part of the ability they want to apply so I often have to read the entire thing myself or they will try to give the short description that is on the feat table or on the spell list.
Now if you are reading the ability word for word I don't know why he is doing that.
I have a player in my game who can't stop picking on the rules. When I write an encounter, I try to make it as simple as possible. When he writes an encounter, he tries to stick to the rules, or he changes the encounter, or he writes out special rules.
In his campaign, he insists on rolling stabilization for every single monster we knock unconscious. In one game, we were actually backtracking to coup de grace the goblin dogs so we could speed things up. When we raided the goblin fort....things got worse.
In his game, this is bad enough. But in my games, he'll question my rules, and look up every little condition. I have to say, "I don't care, this is how we're playing" to get him to stop, and he often checks it anyways.
The thing is, he doesn't just rules-lawyer to help the party. In fact, he often lawyers against the party, saying you technically apply energy resistance to every attack in scorching ray, not the total.
The rules are getting really constricting, and I'm wondering if anybody has any advice on how to deal with this player (or if I'm doing something wrong).
Sorry if this is in the wrong subforum.
As far as your games go inform him you run your games differently and not to argue rules with you during play, if he does not like it he does not have to play in your campaign. That is my number one rule in games that I run, if rules get in the way with having fun then they go away I arbitrate them and move on.