|
With the weekly sessions I have been running I constantly run into a problem where I will not know the exact specifics for a rules, and I will just make up something and run with it, it doesn't do optimum damage, but doesn't usually sway one way or the other with the players.
I have one member of the group who will consistently challenge me on my judgment calls, break out the core/apg and make a fuss, or if I make up something on the fly (dungeon) for fun, and give some story, (we spent a solid 7 hours on one test dungeon and not even finished with it), and he will contradict everything I say.
We have been friends for years, and I told him about it, and he just tells me to learn the rules. How can I deal with him without kicking him out?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make them your rules lawyer. Tell them that if they know the exact location of the text off-hand than you'll use it, but otherwise you'll make a "for the moment" ruling while they search. This legitimizes their concern for rules while also ensuring that the game doesn't get slowed down.
In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to learn rules better. There's only so far you can go, but a look-up shouldn't happen more than once or twice a session.
Also, tell them that you reserve the right to make stuff up. This means that sometimes the enemies will have a special ability that you give them for the express purpose of bypassing a normal rule. (For example, give them a special ability that makes their magic not show under detect magic.) This includes the possibility of new spells and/or feats.
Remind him of the most important rule. Rule Zero. The one that says that whatever you say, goes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remind him of the most important rule. Rule Zero. The one that says that whatever you say, goes.
Do NOT say this, at least not this way. Laying down the rule-zero right off the bat is the surest way to piss off a rule-centric player.
Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.
You could do the following.
A) (My personal favorite) Learn the Rules.
B) Tell him that its your game, your call. He can get over it or he can bow out. The End.
C) Deal with the corrections and move along.
D) (alternate to A) Make sure that you are fully prepared for each session in advance. Know the rules for any particular fight or encounter that is likely to occur over the course of that session ONLY. This means also being prepared for any alternate course the players may take. Personally, I find (A) to be a lot easier, but then again I've been playing the game for 30 years.
E) Kill or harass his characters until he stops his Rules Lawyering or quits on his own. (Yes, this is petty and ill advised, but it IS an option, hence its inclusion)
F) (another personal favorite) Every time the player breaks out a rulebook while in combat, take a cooking timer or stopwatch and start timing him. For every 6 seconds he spends researching some obscure rule that's a round his character spends inactive, standing dazed and flat-footed while some omnipresent controlling force halts his actions so he can figure out what the best course of action is.
I'm one of those people who can get a bit uptight about the rules so I think I'm familiar with your friend's mindset. Some people think in terms of 'the rules' when playing a game. When things don't happen according to the rules it is as if the laws of world have suddenly become unstable. This causes those players to become upset because they are no longer sure about how the game world works. At least, that's how it works in my case ;)
Of course, this doesn't give anyone any excuse to be disruptive in game. There are a couple ways that this situation can be defused without killing friendships or breaking the game group apart.
One solution is that your friend may have to just figure out that if he doesn't reign himself in that he won't be able to play in your games. The two of you could talk about things after the games. This will allow you to learn more of the rules and it will allow him to keep his game world's laws of physics safe (lol).
Another way around this is that if you are unsure about a rule, you could ask him about it. Make the rules lawyer work for you!
In order for things to work out, you'll probably need a combination of both of the above options to happen. Either way, it is probably unlikely that he will simply be able to completely stop making a fuss about the rules. However, the two of you should be able to find ways to keep it from being disruptive in game.
As the GM, it is your responsability to learn the rules of the game system your are adjudicating.
That's a tough one. Yes, you are obligated to know the rules, I would say (or else you're playing another game), but there's always a point at which you just have to wing it and move on.
I sometimes just say, "Yeah, you kill it," or something similar because the character obviously will, and I want to get on with things.
So many feats, spells and builds depend on rules and their interpretations, though, that it's frustrating to a player if said rules are ignored, or aren't applied evenly.
The standard advice is to make a decision and continue, then discuss it later. Perhaps you do need to know the rules a little better, or maybe the player is being too picky. It's your decision when to pause and look something up (sometimes you should), and when to just make a ruling and carry on. Your friend has to either accept that, and politely discuss it out of game, or be forever frustrated by his "know-nothing" GM.
I've been in this same situation, but I was on the other end of the conflict. My gm and I would have absolute knock-down-drag-outs over rules usage and combat stuff. He was much more comfortable ad-libbing both story and rules. For the most part he had it right, but he'd get things wrong that - to him - were little, but to me made a fairly big difference.
I don't know your player's motivations or personality, but for me it was about expectations as a player. I want to feel like what I do matters. That the decisions I make on the fly will have the outcomes I think they will. I'm not talking plot decisions, here, I'm talking actions in combat and what-not. When the 'rules of the universe' change (and that's what the core mechanics are - how the world works from the PC's perspective), it's frustrating as it undermines my feeling that I can do anything with any kind of expected results.
In the end, I left the game. I think we could have worked through it. We both had some things to learn. But he had his way of running, and I had what I wanted out of a game, and they didn't jive.
The other issue we had (which may or may not be the case here) was there was a definite GM vs. player vibe once combat started. I knew he was thinking of ways to "win", and I wanted the same, so I had to scrap for every advantage… and fight for every time he seemed to "cheat" by making up a rule that was counter to the rulebook (I know some people say DM's can't cheat, but i honestly do believe that this tactic is paramount to cheating). This, to me, is a bad deal - because it comes down to player/DM trust. I didn't trust that he was trying to have a good time with me. I felt like he was trying to 'win'.
side note - if you're ever in a game where you feel like you're trying to 'win' agains the DM - stop and leave. You can't beat the DM… it's his world.
I've been totally helpful. I can tell.
|
I'm a big believer in keeping the game moving; if the rule in question is so obvious, that it requires someone to dig in their heels, then it shouldn't be difficult for them to prove it, in mere moments.
If the dissenter is given a minute, and can't find a page reference to back up what they are saying, then it obviously isn't as clear-cut as they think, and it may require looking up and discussing after the game. (Or...GASP!...they could actually be wrong...)
The only situation in which I would sympathise with the lawyering player, is if he has experienced a lot of GMs making stuff up during the game, and then refusing to check or discuss the actual rule between sessions.
Does he play in other groups? If so, it may not be about you, specifically.
Have you made it clear to him that you are willing to discuss the rules, but you need to do it outside of the session? If you only meet once a week, then you cannot afford to have that time eaten up by a rules debate. It's far more efficient to set aside a time to carry out such conversations, where you can consult the books, the PFSRD, the FAQ/errata at your leisure.
In other words, make sure you're not blowing him off. You'll discuss it. Just not right now.
|
|
I do know most of the rules, but I don't have a vast amount of experience to work with. I have been dming for about a year, and make things work, but when he breaks out the core, it's everyones job to sit and wait for him to fix something I've broken, and it isn't usually major, I'll switch up a +1 for 2.
I'm going with A and F lordfeint, I really need Know the rules backward and forward, instead of just forward.
Benicio, the problem is after I MAKE that decision and try to move things along, he will be persistent in making sure that decision is overruled, or will go back and go " that table would produce 3500 Newtons of force if I stepped on it, so it would be a lot more than a d6 on that swarm"
In other words, make sure you're not blowing him off. You'll discuss it. Just not right now.
This is actually some of the best advice I can think of in situations like this. He should be willing to respect your desire to keep the momentum of the game going, and you should respect his desire to play the game the way it was intended.
But let's be honest, if you're the type of GM who just prefers to make crap up, you should be blunt with him and tell him so.
I do know most of the rules, but I don't have a vast amount of experience to work with. I have been dming for about a year, and make things work, but when he breaks out the core, it's everyones job to sit and wait for him to fix something I've broken, and it isn't usually major, I'll switch up a +1 for 2.
I'm going with A and F lordfeint, I really need Know the rules backward and forward, instead of just forward.
Benicio, the problem is after I MAKE that decision and try to move things along, he will be persistent in making sure that decision is overruled, or will go back and go " that table would produce 3500 Newtons of force if I stepped on it, so it would be a lot more than a d6 on that swarm"
AT that point you need to say You will discuss it later but we are not going to get into it now. but take him aside at the beginning of the game and say this don't call him out.
be firm but stand your ground you are the alpha dog! if he has a problem let him know you wont put up with his tom foolery
if he is a friend he will understand, give him your reasons for keeping the flow going
I'm so glad you edited that. It's like I un-read it.
EDIT: nevermind...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.
As the GM, it is your responsibility to learn the rules of the game system your are adjudicating.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. As a GM, it's your job to provide an exciting opportunity for the players to have a fun time. If they walk away bored, or frustrated, or confused, then it doesn't matter whether you know the changes to the grease spell or the way Vital Strike is supposed to work.
Most* of the very best referees I know couldn't give a horn-swaggle about the rules while they're at the table. They're telling an awesome story, you've got a starring role in it, and let's go. They want you thinking about what you're going to say, once the Squadron Opproborious hauls your butt before the Darakul King for sentencing, rather than how you can eke out another +2 to your PC's Diplomacy check.
In the interest of honest advertising, they probably don't promote their campaign as "Pathfinder by the book." Maybe "Pathfinder you'll be telling people about, ten years from now."
If you're in the middle of a Call of C'thulhu encounter and you're mentally calculating how many dice of damage your PC is likely to take when he rams his jeep into a star vampire, I'd liken that to balancing your checkbook while keeping one eye on a horror movie. It's bad Zen.
* I was going to say "Some" here. But then I considered the "take no prisoners" GMs I've played under or watched at cons, and I ammended that. Having said that, when some of those selfsame GMs turn their attention to writing for Pathfinder, they demonstrate impressive system-mastery. But there's a time and place for making sure that the guitar is in tune, and a time and place to rock out.
I'm so glad you edited that. It's like I un-read it.
EDIT: nevermind...
case of thinking before speaking. trying to set up a good example not be a me.
realized not every body has my sense of humor.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I suggest you try an experiment. Play a session with no books at all. Spellcasters can use Perram's spellcard generator to print up spells, otherwise you are just winging it. If he disagrees with you on a ruling then come up with a compromise and make a mental note to look it up when the session is over.
Every time you crack a book you are breaking down the 4th wall which is bad for role playing. Our group generally limits book time to looking up spells and it works really well. Of course I know the rules pretty well so...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.I'm going to respectfully disagree. As a GM, it's your job to provide an exciting opportunity for the players to have a fun time. If they walk away bored, or frustrated, or confused, then it doesn't matter whether you know the changes to the grease spell or the way Vital Strike is supposed to work.As the GM, it is your responsibility to learn the rules of the game system your are adjudicating.
Just remember that if every other round I try to do something that I know should work but get overruled, I'm going to end up frustrated and/or confused.
If I decide to break stereotypes and play an intelligent, tactical fighter, but then the only combat tactics that work like the book says are "hit it" and "hit it again", I'm going to be frustrated.
If I let my guard down to help a wounded ally because I know the BBEG is far enough away that he can't get to me and attack in one round, but then you make him charge around a corner and get me, and refuse to listen when I point out he can't do that, I'm going to be upset.
If I make a character who's very good at Situation X, and X comes up, I'm going to be upset if you artificially neuter my abilities because you think succeeding at my specialty doesn't make a good story.
On the other hand, translating Newtons into d6s? Seriously? That's not rules lawyering, really - there are no Newton-to-damage charts in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make them your rules lawyer. Tell them that if they know the exact location of the text off-hand than you'll use it, but otherwise you'll make a "for the moment" ruling while they search. This legitimizes their concern for rules while also ensuring that the game doesn't get slowed down.
In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to learn rules better. There's only so far you can go, but a look-up shouldn't happen more than once or twice a session.
Also, tell them that you reserve the right to make stuff up. This means that sometimes the enemies will have a special ability that you give them for the express purpose of bypassing a normal rule. (For example, give them a special ability that makes their magic not show under detect magic.) This includes the possibility of new spells and/or feats.
Wow. Just wow.
An absolutely perfect answer in the first reply.
This is absolutely what you should do. Rules lawyers are valuable and can seriously enhance the game if you, you know, cooperate with them a little. After all, it IS a cooperative game.
|
In other words, make sure you're not blowing him off. You'll discuss it. Just not right now.This is actually some of the best advice I can think of in situations like this. He should be willing to respect your desire to keep the momentum of the game going, and you should respect his desire to play the game the way it was intended.
But let's be honest, if you're the type of GM who just prefers to make crap up, you should be blunt with him and tell him so.
This. Definitely this.
To give an anecdote, I keep telling my gm that demons aren't immune to fire, but he routinely forgets it. It's something that does not come up a lot and everyone is okay to let some lousy 1d6 fire damage go to waste to keep the game going, but it's definitely something we would discuss if it had a bigger effect on the game. Just not during the game. There's enough silly backtalk and dry humour that maintaining a semblance of roleplaying during combat is hard. Especially if we've had a long break between sessions. I recall this one time the GM was so absorbed in retelling some duergar ambush scenario that he started drawing threath zones in the battlemap!
In a nutshell, less talk, more game.
Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.As the GM, it is your responsibility to learn the rules of the game system your are adjudicating.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. As a GM, it's your job to provide an exciting opportunity for the players to have a fun time. If they walk away bored, or frustrated, or confused, then it doesn't matter whether you know the changes to the grease spell or the way Vital Strike is supposed to work.
Most* of the very best referees I know couldn't give a horn-swaggle about the rules while they're at the table. They're telling an awesome story, you've got a starring role in it, and let's go. They want you thinking about what you're going to say, once the Squadron Opproborious hauls your butt before the Darakul King for sentencing, rather than how you can eke out another +2 to your PC's Diplomacy check.
snip...
* I was going to say "Some" here. But then I considered the "take no prisoners" GMs I've played under or watched at cons, and I ammended that. Having said that, when some of those selfsame GMs turn their attention to writing for Pathfinder, they demonstrate impressive system-mastery. But there's a time and place for making sure that the guitar is in tune, and a time and place to rock out.
However, GM's with incredible system mastery and a sense of flair can do that. GM's who lack system mastery just make for an extremely frustrating experience for the playrs with system mastery.
There comes a point in story telling when the GM should just go ahead and write a book.
|
|
I had a similar situation, though not an argumentative player. My player just takes a great deal of pride in knowing ALL the rules. My solution to this was to make the rules-centric player my "lookup" guy whose responsible for finding the rules, like a few others have suggested. It has worked very well, so I recommend trying it. Here are my 2 suggestions:
1- If you are going to invoke rule 0, try to do it over storyline or world rules, not combat and spellcasting rules. For instance, if you want to change the way that magic items are generated in cities or the overland movement rate of ships, no ones going to care. If you change the way Power Attack or grapple works on the fly, your players are usually very much going to care.
2- Make your players use spellcards or know their spell's range, duration, save, etc. My house rule is if I ask you that and can't get an answer in 5 sec, you cant cast the spell that round. That way the onus is on the players to know the spells.
However, all this being said, loss of immersion is huge. We have a gentleman's agreement between myself and the players that says in the interest of not losing the game in a 10 minute hunt for minutiae, we will roll with the GM's call, and check if afterwords. Usually we just play it the right way in the future, but if its a major impact on the game, we adjust it afterwards to the players dont get the short end of the stick.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Ravingdork said, the first answer on this thread is also the best one. If you can trust him, make him your rules lawyer.
I'm my group's rules lawyer. When we need a specific rule, the DM turns on me and I explain it - or if I don't remember 100%, in which case I also say that I'm not sure of what I'm talking about, I suggest a quick way to resolve the problem with logic and balance (example : during a game yesterday, I didn't remember what was the DC for a Heal check against the poison killing an ally, so I proposed that the check should be equal to the poison's DC and should require one use from a healer's kit, to give a +2 circumstance bonus to the victim - I was right, except I didn't need a healer's kit and the bonus was a +4, but don't worry, the guy survived), always giving the DM the last word on how things work.
If we need to know how it really works, we just make up a rule that makes sense for the time being and while the game continues, I just check quickly on a smartphone what the real rule was for the next time we'll have to use it. Same for spells : I simply don't use them, or I check the spell's effect and whereabouts during the round of someone else.
With the DM trusting the rule lawyer while trying to follow the rules as closer as possible, and the rule lawyer doing it's best to quickly give a useful answer so the fluff doesn't suffer because of the crunch, we don't slow the game and everyone is happy.
|
|
Rule zero is fine, but should not be used to justify a lack of rules knowledge, which is what the rules-centric character is concerned about.I'm going to respectfully disagree. As a GM, it's your job to provide an exciting opportunity for the players to have a fun time. If they walk away bored, or frustrated, or confused, then it doesn't matter whether you know the changes to the grease spell or the way Vital Strike is supposed to work.As the GM, it is your responsibility to learn the rules of the game system your are adjudicating.
Just remember that if every other round I try to do something that I know should work but get overruled, I'm going to end up frustrated and/or confused.
If I decide to break stereotypes and play an intelligent, tactical fighter, but then the only combat tactics that work like the book says are "hit it" and "hit it again", I'm going to be frustrated.
If I let my guard down to help a wounded ally because I know the BBEG is far enough away that he can't get to me and attack in one round, but then you make him charge around a corner and get me, and refuse to listen when I point out he can't do that, I'm going to be upset.
If I make a character who's very good at Situation X, and X comes up, I'm going to be upset if you artificially neuter my abilities because you think succeeding at my specialty doesn't make a good story.
On the other hand, translating Newtons into d6s? Seriously? That's not rules lawyering, really - there are no Newton-to-damage charts in the CRB.
This... if you are going to learn PF rules as a GM, focus on the combat rules first, especially feats. You can really destroy a player's build and/or kill PCs unfairly if you have NPCs do things they can't or restrict players from doing things they can...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You know it's funny, my wife is our groups GM right now and if the people at our table were ranked based on rules knowledge she would probably be second to last.
Knowledge of specific rules is great, but it is not the most important thing to good GMing, it's a distant second or even third.
If you don't trust your GM's judgment with regards to the rules then you are probably playing in the wrong group. Move on or lighten up. Breaking out the books and arguing is only going to frustrate the GM and slow the game down.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just remember that if every other round I try to do something that I know should work but get overruled, I'm going to end up frustrated and/or confused. If I make a character who's very good at Situation X, and X comes up, I'm going to be upset if you artificially neuter my abilities because you think succeeding at my specialty doesn't make a good story.
I agree. "Good story" should always be larger than "the story the GM has in mind".
If I let my guard down to help a wounded ally because I know the BBEG is far enough away that he can't get to me and attack in one round, but then you make him charge around a corner and get me, and refuse to listen when I point out he can't do that, I'm going to be upset.
I kind of agree. In that case, you're relying on game rules (squares of movement, rounds, Characters can't Turn on the game grid while Charging) rather than the reality that the game rules are trying to simulate. If you objected, the "take no prisoners" GMs I've seen would probably agree, and make life hard for your character anyways.
("Oh, man! You know, that's right. He can't attack this round. But he's coming right for you, with this crazy look his eyes and spittle at the corners of his mouth. You're on one knee next to your ally there, with your sword within easy reach, and he'll be on you in a half-second; next round, the stench of him will catch up. Are you going to get to your feet, reach for your blade, or just roll the hell out of the way?")
On the other hand, translating Newtons into d6s? Seriously? That's not rules lawyering, really - there are no Newton-to-damage charts in the CRB.
|
|
Make them your rules lawyer. Tell them that if they know the exact location of the text off-hand than you'll use it, but otherwise you'll make a "for the moment" ruling while they search. This legitimizes their concern for rules while also ensuring that the game doesn't get slowed down.
In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to learn rules better. There's only so far you can go, but a look-up shouldn't happen more than once or twice a session.
Also, tell them that you reserve the right to make stuff up. This means that sometimes the enemies will have a special ability that you give them for the express purpose of bypassing a normal rule. (For example, give them a special ability that makes their magic not show under detect magic.) This includes the possibility of new spells and/or feats.
Wow. Just wow.
An absolutely perfect answer in the first reply.
This is absolutely what you should do. Rules lawyers are valuable and can seriously enhance the game if you, you know, cooperate with them a little. After all, it IS a cooperative game.
I'm glad someone thinks so. I seem to have been largely ignored.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Good story" should always be larger than "the story the GM has in mind".
So many times this. Every so often on these boards I run into a GM who thinks they should do whatever it takes to get the players to be in accordance with what the GM has planned. *shudders*
If I let my guard down to help a wounded ally because I know the BBEG is far enough away that he can't get to me and attack in one round, but then you make him charge around a corner and get me, and refuse to listen when I point out he can't do that, I'm going to be upset.I kind of agree. In that case, you're relying on game rules (squares of movement, rounds, Characters can't Turn on the game grid while Charging) rather than the reality that the game rules are trying to simulate.
Not necessarily - if they only look so fast and I'm behind an obstacle, it's not unreasonable for a character to think "Okay, I think I've got a couple of seconds for this".
If you objected, the "take no prisoners" GMs I've seen would probably agree, and make life hard for your character anyways.
("Oh, man! You know, that's right. He can't attack this round. But he's coming right for you, with this crazy look his eyes and spittle at the corners of his mouth. You're on one knee next to your ally there, with your sword within easy reach, and he'll be on you in a half-second; next round, the stench of him will catch up. Are you going to get to your feet, reach for your blade, or just roll the hell out of the way?")
And that may have been what the player was planning on, and decided it was an acceptable risk (or perhaps has invested in being able to handle that type of situation better than they can handle a charge). And the event you described still includes a compelling "OH SH-" moment for the story.
|
|
As a modification to the 'make him the lawyer' advice, I'd suggest you give him a notebook. Ask him to only interrupt the game when it really matters and to simply make notes of the other things he notices. In turn, promise to learn the things he makes notes of and to prevent making the same mistakes twice.
He gets his control, you get your rhythm. Ought to be a win-win.
I'm glad someone thinks so. I seem to have been largely ignored.Make them your rules lawyer. Tell them that if they know the exact location of the text off-hand than you'll use it, but otherwise you'll make a "for the moment" ruling while they search. This legitimizes their concern for rules while also ensuring that the game doesn't get slowed down.
In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to learn rules better. There's only so far you can go, but a look-up shouldn't happen more than once or twice a session.
Also, tell them that you reserve the right to make stuff up. This means that sometimes the enemies will have a special ability that you give them for the express purpose of bypassing a normal rule. (For example, give them a special ability that makes their magic not show under detect magic.) This includes the possibility of new spells and/or feats.
Wow. Just wow.
An absolutely perfect answer in the first reply.
This is absolutely what you should do. Rules lawyers are valuable and can seriously enhance the game if you, you know, cooperate with them a little. After all, it IS a cooperative game.
I think you hit it right on both of your first two posts (I even marked them as favorites). Rules lawyers can help or hurt a campaign.
The rules are the physics of the Pathfinder Universe. If the players can't expect the rules to work consistently, or they are vastly different from what the players expect, it will lead to problems.
I will admit it, I'm a rules lawyer. (Why I do I feel like I'm at an AA meeting).
It's a power that can wielded for good or evil. If the GM asks for assistance a good rules lawyer can be ready to provide a quote or reference to keep the game moving. With the power comes responsibility, a good rules lawyer also knows when to keep quiet. If it's a small inconsequential matter, let it pass. If it results in a character death, by all means the rules lawyer should speak up. Each group will have to decide where "getting it right" overrides "getting it done."
I may spent a lot of time here arguing rules, that isn't necessarily so I can eek out some small advantage. It's more so that when I run a game I don't have to reference the books.
It seems that many people think that immersive role-play and rules-centric gaming are mutually exclusive. I find the better you know the rules the less time you spend arguing about them. It's time spent out of character dealing with rules that is the problem, not the fact that you are actually following the rules that disrupts immersive role-play.
Another way around this is that if you are unsure about a rule, you could ask him about it. Make the rules lawyer work for you!
+1 Been doing this for over a quarter century. I also pass out treasure keeping, initiative, even running the monsters to players. Dang! Players can be brutal to each other!
I've had to deal with to many rules lawyers in my time to give them anymore slack. That being said there is a time and place for it and usually in the middle of the game is not it. I usually prefer to table rule question until the end of the game, beginning of the game, or between sessions. I try to learn from the mistakes and correct them with proper rules knowledge that being said there is no way mentally possible for me to know every rule throughout every book. I once memorized all the core 2e rules but that was many editions ago.
Next anyone that tries to quote monster/npc rules to me are going to get a blank stare and the question from my mouth is going to be going to be along the lines of if his character knows anything about the monster/npc in question and if not how does he as a player know what options I applied to said monster/npc."
And lastly the first player that tells me to learn the rules better just volunteered to be the new GM for the group.
You have to put you foot down against people that are going disrupt your game in such a fashion. Fighting over rules in mid-session does not make things fun for anyone at the table including the offending parties in involved in the arguement.
And as an aside I disagree with the player vs DM sentament. The role of the game master is to make an engaging story the challenges the player characters in many ways and on a combat level that is often shown in a healthy level of.competition between the players and DM. A dm can kill players without breaking a sweat but that is not fun and a proper attitude should include some player vs DM competition.
|
|
I've had to deal with to many rules lawyers in my time to give them anymore slack. That being said there is a time and place for it and usually in the middle of the game is not it. I usually prefer to table rule question until the end of the game, beginning of the game, or between sessions. I try to learn from the mistakes and correct them with proper rules knowledge that being said there is no way mentally possible for me to know every rule throughout every book. I once memorized all the core 2e rules but that was many editions ago.
Next anyone that tries to quote monster/npc rules to me are going to get a blank stare and the question from my mouth is going to be going to be along the lines of if his character knows anything about the monster/npc in question and if not how does he as a player know what options I applied to said monster/npc."
And lastly the first player that tells me to learn the rules better just volunteered to be the new GM for the group.
You have to put you foot down against people that are going disrupt your game in such a fashion. Fighting over rules in mid-session does not make things fun for anyone at the table including the offending parties in involved in the arguement.
And as an aside I disagree with the player vs DM sentament. The role of the game master is to make an engaging story the challenges the player characters in many ways and on a combat level that is often shown in a healthy level of.competition between the players and DM. A dm can kill players without breaking a sweat but that is not fun and a proper attitude should include some player vs DM competition.
I disagree with this "tell the rules lawyer to shove it" sentiment for two reasons. One: Many characters are built based on how the rules work. If you get a rule wrong it is easily possible to completely cripple the character just when it comes to be their time to shine. I have seen it happen before and nothing turns a player's experience sour faster than having an ace in the hole and being told "no" because the DM does not understand the rules and refuses to let you open to an already-known page to show them the rule. And two: This pisses off the rules lawyer a LOT and could easily lose you a player that is otherwise great fun.
However, you still can't let rules discussions take up too much time. This why I proposed that the rules lawyer character be told that they'll have to use an ad-hoc ruling if they don't know the relevant text's location off-hand.
Also, if the creature has a non-obvious ability that changes how a certain rule works, tell the damn player. This very quickly returns control to the DM in situations where it should firmly reside there. The easy way to defuse this is to say "I'm aware of that rule, but it doesn't work that way for this creature. If you wish you can attempt a knowledge roll or have your character do research later to figure out why."
PS: If a player is memorizing monster stats, I think we can all agree that they need to shove off or start taking knowledge skills. My assumption was that this is about rules that the character WOULD know and be able to depend on.