There were two rules lawyers who constantly argued with the DM at a game I attend. I guess I was starting to be a third, until one night the DM sternly stated that "There are too many discussions about the rules, and it's interfering with the game". I knew he was right and immediately made an effort to cease making arguments against DM's rulings, unless it was something really important, like trying to make it possible to Raise one of our comrades from the dead. One of the other lawyers (let's call him Player Y) also scaled it back quite a bit. He still makes the occasional argument that ends up slowing the game, but he admits that he has had a problem with this and says he is working on it, and I think he is.
The other lawyer (let's call him Player X), however, doesn't seem to know when to quit. Last week, fairly early in the game, the DM had to leave the room to cool off when the two were in an argument; I took this opportunity to point out that DM is right and asked, politely, if he would please make an effort to stop antagonizing the DM, because it's seriously cutting into gaming time. He didn't have much of a response, but when DM came back and we resumed playing, he didn't have much in the way of an argument for the rest of the night. In fact, he didn't say much of anything or play with any enthusiasm for the rest of the evening. Combat and play went pretty smooth.
Last night, however, that attitude seemed to go away. More arguing rulings, arguing on other people's turns, making combat take forever, etc. Combat was pretty great, however. Just to set the scene a little, most characters are level 12 and mine is 11, having joined the game in progress with a slight deficiency in XP that I'm swiftly making up. We were in a pretty intense battle with a miniboss after a pretty challenging dungeon crawl. Without any of us realizing it, it was 1:30 in the morning and we were still in the heat of it (game was scheduled at 7:30, we got into it about 8:45 or so). In spite of Player X rules lawyering, a good night; I'm sure most people reading this have had similar experiences or are lucky enough to have them on a regular basis.
Somewhere around this time, Player X does a few things that frustrate DM, like continually talking while DM is trying to do some math and making DM start over (X wasn't TRYING to screw him up, but then again he wasn't being respectful enough to notice that DM was trying to calculate and keeping it down). This pissed DM off.
Eventually we get to where X questions the range of some spell DM has cast, and does it overlap with this other one, yada yada, DM keeps pointing out, "No, the line's here", "I'm telling you, the spell affects a, b, c", more "clarifications" (arguing) from X, and DM blows up at him and basically tells him to shut up and that this is what's making everything take so long. X grumbles that after this turn he's going to go home, starts packing up his stuff. DM says that's a pretty good place to stop, since we now collectively realize it's 1:30.
So people leave, but Y and I stick around for over an hour and chat, and mostly the subject of the conversation is Player X. Some beefs:
DM has us roll scores with an eye towards the Epic, 4d6, reroll ones. Whereas I won't play a character who doesn't have a single score below 13, and am happy to take a character with a 7,9,19,18,14,11 as a generously endowed starting character (this is after kobold racial mods), DM showed us Player X's scores - before gear mods, lowest is 14, highest is 20, with two 18s and a 16. And this is a cleric. Whose second lowest stat is Wisdom. To give you and idea, my character, all geared up, has an initiative of +10 - +6 Dex, +4 Improved Init. X's character has a +12 - same stats plus reactionary trait. In full (mithral) plate armor.*
DM, who know more about what goes on with gear and how he distributes it, claims X is greedy, and passes this off as being a Cleric of Torag (god of wealth, acquisition, I guess?). X apparently has all the best gear and is sitting on some stuff that he should be giving to other party members.
This is mine - for all his superhuman scores, mods, attack bonuses, etc, X plays it kind of dull in combat. Mostly stands and holds his action. You pretty much have to run at him on fire screaming "heal me" to get healing out of him. An old (now, dead) character I had in this same game once asked him, invisibly, for healing. This request was flatly ignored. Last week my kobold ran up to him, hissing "heal me". When it was his turn he moved away from me. When I pointed out that he was ignoring my request, he said, "Sorry, I didn't hear you." To which I responded, "Well, I'm telling you now!" Him: "Well, I moved already." Out of combat, he's a decent roleplayer.
X always has to have the last word. He's the type that likes to argue about how he's not arguing, just point out, getting a clarification, citing ruling precedents.
So what to do now? I feel shady and icky doing anything that gets a player straight up banned from DnD. We talked about it at length, eventually DM (who was sleepy and had a drink or two by 2 am), when asked what to do about X, made a slashing gesture across his throat. Is he kidding? Does he actually want PvP? I'm going to err on the side of no and assume he was making a joke.
Still, DM has repeatedly scolded him, other player (me) has personally asked him to stop - what now? It was hinted (not by DM, but by 3rd party in discussion) that this isn't and shouldn't be DM's job, that we as players need to curb his behavior. I've said my peace to him. Do I need to contact all the other players and have some kind of intervention? Y and I are actually talking about ambushing/murdering his character (he's CN, my character is LE). So far it's jokey joke talk, but I could see things getting to a point where it's not.
I should add that this letter comes in a mood of frustration after a game was curtailed, and that I'm pretty much only telling you the bad stuff about X. He can be fun to have around and he's a decent Roleplayer. He also lives a few blocks from DM and I think their kids are friends. DM pointed out that since X's wife "wears the pants" and he works for his brother "he can never be right. He's always overruled. I think that's why he's like this."
I'd love to hear ideas, anecedotes for the best non-violent, non-banning approach to this situation.
Thanks,
JF
*This one I totally blame the DM for. X's character didn't magically appear at level 12; he's been in the campaign since at least level 5, when I joined the game over a year ago. If there was a problem with the stats, I feel DM should have addressed it at character creation, and not belabor it now. Nevertheless, it is something that irks DM on a constant basis, and now he's talking about instituting 25 point buys and fairness. How that will apply to current campaign he isn't sure. He admits that it isn't fair to nerf characters when they're 12th level.
What our group TRYS to do (not always succesfully) is hold the disagreements until later.
Unless the item is vitally important (will cause unreasonable character death) will go with the current GM rulling. Out of session, everyone can take the time to cite their sources, ask on these boards, etc... Then we know for the future, but each combat doesn't take 3 hours to complete.
Side benifit, usually the rules lawyer (yes it is sometimes me) will decide it's not worth the effort of going into it later.
A common occurance at our table is someone saying, "let's just go with this for now, cause it isn't going to make that big a difference either way, and we can look it up later." Sometimes it has to be repeated, "I said, let's go with this for now..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd suggest that you seperate the "I think he's being a difficult player/jerk" from "He has better stats/stuff then everyone else" when dealing with this situation.
I have been gaming since 1985 and one thing I am absolutley positive about is there are certain personalities that simply cannot be fixed.
When confronted with person like this "rules lawyering guy" your choice is to learn to live with it, get rid of them or help them to understand why what they are doing is disruptive.
I am going to make an assumption that the person you are talking about, at least according to their driver's license, is an adult. If so, at least in theory, you should be able to rationally explain what the issue is and arrive at some compromise. If he is not mature enough for that I suggest one of two things....
1) get rid of him
2) hand him the GM screen
Since he clearly knows more about the game system, mechanics and how a game should flow than anyone else he should be a stellar GM.
I will never, ever let a single player ruin a game, especially if everyone else is enjoying themselves. There is no reason to tolerate someone constantly picking at the GM, it's inexcusable. Discuss things after the game, via e-mail or whatever but quit wasting game time on pointless arguements.
Rule #1 - The GM is Right
Rule #2 If you don't think the GM is right, see Rule #1
Just my suggestion.
I've also been gaming since the early 80's and agree with everything Scrogz said.
Ultradan
My post just got wiped.
Short version
30 seconds to find a rule. If nothing concrete is found then it is up to the GM. Feel free to research it outside of the game.
AS for the stats that is on the GM. He should have used point buy if he wanted everyone on the same level.
As for the not healing. If it is RP then I would become more self reliant and consider kicking the character out of the party. Why adventure with someone who does not have your back.
If he is being a jerk and it is not RP try to hash it out. If he won't change boot him. Not everyone that is a friend can be gamed with.
I am going to ask an odd question here, so bear with me. It sounds like your group has 3 players who were semi regularly talking with the GM about rules during play.
Is there any chance that part of the blame is with the GM? Does he play by the rules are written? Does he apply the rules consistantly and fairly? If he is using house rules, does he have a house rules packet so that all your players know what the changes are BEFORE the game?
If player X is just making trouble to make trouble then he needs to be removed from game if he does not shape up. But if he is merely trying to know what rules are in use so he can play by them, then maybe part of the issue is on both sides, GM and lawyer?
I know that lots of people get labeled as a rules lawyer when all they really want is to KNOW what the rules they are player under ARE and then see them consistantly applied by the GM.
Most of the time if they can just know the rules and see them applied consistatly these sorts of issues disappear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where's Mr. Fishy when you need him?
Next time Player X interrupts the game with something that should wait until later, interrupt him and say "give it a rest for now, we'll go with this and hash it out later." Every time he keeps trying to belabor the issue, interrupt him (it's called the broken record technique).
You have to be as willing to stand your ground as he is if you ever want a chance at curtailing his behavior. Alternatively, the DM can just tell them to leave (unless you play at his house, but it doesn't sound like that's the case). Good luck!
Don't leave it all up to the DM. The rest of you players should get on Player X's case about being disruptive. If he needs to debate rules, get out an egg timer or something. If he goes longer than that, tell he's made his case, shut up, and let the DM make his ruling. I heartily recommend you ALL keep on him about being disruptive.
On other fronts, it sounds like he's just being a dick. How is this character hoarding stuff from the other PCs? Is he the guy who writes down the loot you get? And nobody's noticed before now? If you now know he's holding back from the rest of the party, someone else really needs to step up to manage the loot records. Frankly, I think that if the player has been lying to the rest of you players about the loot your characters would receive, he should receive the boot.
ROLL BARBARIAN.
RAGELANCEPOUNCE.
COLLECT SHINY LOOT.
REPEAT AS NECESSARY.
PROBLEM AM SOLVED.
|
tell you dm to grow a pair, lol (dont say it like that). when i gm and people give me crap about rulings or wont shut up about something, i open the page of the GMG and say " hey look at this here, you're right" then i flip the page to the rule that says i can alter the game as needed, then i say " oh but look here, this says you're wrong!" pointing to page "6"
i do this VERY rarely, and only to people who have to argue over everything. i would rather not have any rules and have a fun game where people enjoyed themselves then a 3 hour b$+!+ fest about whether or not that person gets a +1 to attack or not. i have played in those games and i never will again be part of one.
|
Where's Mr. Fishy when you need him?
Next time Player X interrupts the game with something that should wait until later, interrupt him and say "give it a rest for now, we'll go with this and hash it out later." Every time he keeps trying to belabor the issue, interrupt him (it's called the broken record technique).You have to be as willing to stand your ground as he is if you ever want a chance at curtailing his behavior. Alternatively, the DM can just tell them to leave (unless you play at his house, but it doesn't sound like that's the case). Good luck!
I have to say that this is probably the best solution... and one we've tried to implement in our games.
The key is that the GM needs to be strong enough to say, "Enough, guys. I am going to make a snap ruling... that's the way we'll do it tonight. If you find that this is not exactly per the rules, we'll discuss it later, offline".
Then, if you have a forum for this discussion (such as an email list, or whatever), you can all debate to your hearts' content, without wasting time in game.
Rarely (if ever) is a session by an "incorrect" ruling... things may just end up being "sub-optimal". Of course, as a group, it would help if you all agreed that this is the way you'll deal with things. Additionally, if a "spot ruling" is made, all characters should have to interact within that ruling consistently. This is a place I sometimes have problems with, as a GM... forgetting what our previous spot rulings are. That is why, if I remember, I try and document the rulings in a publicly available place (such as my Champions Rulings page.
In general, it is best to remember that we are all human, and all there to have fun!
I had a group like this once, every time they would argue with the gm I would say "What the GM says happens, is what happens. Accept that or play in someone else' game.", though typically they would argue amongst themselves, and I'd tell the GM what I was doing while they bickered, it was good times.
I am going to ask an odd question here, so bear with me. It sounds like your group has 3 players who were semi regularly talking with the GM about rules during play.
Is there any chance that part of the blame is with the GM? Does he play by the rules are written? Does he apply the rules consistantly and fairly? If he is using house rules, does he have a house rules packet so that all your players know what the changes are BEFORE the game?
If player X is just making trouble to make trouble then he needs to be removed from game if he does not shape up. But if he is merely trying to know what rules are in use so he can play by them, then maybe part of the issue is on both sides, GM and lawyer?
I know that lots of people get labeled as a rules lawyer when all they really want is to KNOW what the rules they are player under ARE and then see them consistantly applied by the GM.
Most of the time if they can just know the rules and see them applied consistatly these sorts of issues disappear.
A fair question. As to GM picking on X- not in-game, no. Fact is, most of the rulings X disputes don't even concern his character. X is a GM in his own home game, it should be noted, and so most of his comments start with "however you want to run it is fine, I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that in MY game blah blah..." GM is stubborn and he will take the time to cite and explain why the ruling is fair because he doesn't want to be a tyrant. Even if he does lay down the law with a snap ruling, x will spend a few minutes looking up a wording or a ruling and start reading it aloud in the middle of some other combat, and follow up w/ "you can rule how you want, but the BOOK says..."
However, DM has told me privately that "x cheats, and he doesn't know it but I dock him xp for it". I have not personally seen this translate to deficient levels.
Well, what can one do as a player? You've asked him to stop, and he thought you meant "stop for the next couple of hours." Perhaps you and the remaining players can set up a second campaign to run while your current campaign's GM argues with X over the rules. I mean, if it's cutting into play time that much... of course, there's a very real risk that the GM will end up joining your new group as a player about fifteen minutes into your new campaign. Which would at least signal to X that he's not winning friends, impressing anybody or doing his case much good. It would also eliminate that annoying ubercleric from the equation... you know, I started out making this suggestion facetiously, and now it's starting to look like a solid solution. ;) Get Player Y to GM - he seems to think his grasp of the rules is up to it.
Ironically, I think Y knows less about the game than me, and I've only been playing 1 year or so. He just argues to argue, and admits it, and is working on it. I don't think he has any interest in brig GM.
|
Why not Rule Lawyer HIM (Player X)?
Every time he starts saying something about the game/Dm/his game...etc, STOP him and start giving him, YOUR OWN point of view.
Make sure to go out of your way to do it... heck... Role-Play HIM! RP Player X! And if he ask why you are being so obnoxious, tell him in the face that is why the DM is getting from HIM!
Let him have a taste of his own medicine!
PS: Do this only if you can afford to do so. Aka, you are not in the game he is DMing... etc. :P
Being the rules lawyer that I am I've literally gotten into arguments at the table and then laid money down and told them to look it up and prove me wrong. I'm also considered the most confrontational member of my group of friends, but no one gets too irate since I'm normally the DM. With that in mind I know the rules and people don't regularly argue because I'm running it and has been noted previously just roll with what the DM says if he's wrong address it after game.
However I've been a player in games where someone else was rules lawyering, it was cute but wrong, so I shut them down with more hardcore rules lawyering. Now tbh my DM told me to get involved cause he was tired of it and I'd been holding back for his sake, also I hafta say if engaging him in a battle of wits won't work/solve the problem go with plan B.
Plan B is Am Barbarian's plan, which will work to solve the immediate issue. For a while a group I gamed with was ridiculously cut throat no one was higher than CN on the alignment scale. When the party finally got tired of some character or player's antics the character typically didn't wake up in the morning and had a new smile where his throat should be, but ymmv.
Question to the OP:
Who is usually right about the rule? Player X or the DM?
Because if it's player X then the DM either doesn't have a firm grasp of the rules or uses a lot of house rules.
My suggestion if the second one is happening is to write down and hand to the group all the house rules he has make (and of course house rule the things that are changed by the first batch of house rules).
Something worth asking is when player X argues, is he right?
If he's most often wrong and just being stubborn, that's the problem, but consider if the GM is handwaving rules, and just doesn't want to give player X his way because he's fed up with being challenged, depsite the fact that you three often have a better grasp of how to apply the rules.
Also -
There's two ways to look at the rules - 1) as Guidlines - which the GM has unilateral power to modify, enforce, or ignore, as he believes appropriate. 2) as Rules, which the GM referees when necessary, but are as binding on him as on the player, and should only be ignored or modified with player consent (especially if it disadvantages the player!).
Most games use a mix of these approaches, but "rules lawyer's" problems can crop up just from the GM being more in the "rules as guidlines" camp, and the player perferring more "rules are rules". Both presume the other thinks of the game same as they do, so they talk past each other and presume the other's just being a dick. Getting on the same page of what kind of game you're playing can help that.
It sounds like your GM doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the rules if he constantly gets rules questions by multiple players there is an obvious problem there. However, from what I'm seeing it sounds like this other player runs his game by the book has a similar expectation here and can't seem to relax and just let things play out. It is critical that your GM and this player have a serious discussion about how by the book this game is and what house rules are being used. Another thing that will relax this situation considerably is make sure everyone is held to the same rules GM included, players are just a responsible for keeping the GM honest as he/she is to keep the players honest. It does sound like this player has some serious control issues regardless of circumstance.
As for the hoarding of loot and not healing of characters sometimes a character you roleplay isn't gonna win friends by nature of his personality (play a kender rogue and you'll know what I mean, I had a blast and still managed to make it entertaining for others even though they hated my character). However, from what I've seen (only know 2 alignments CN and LE) it sound to me like this game leans toward being an evil campaign, with that said honestly, just what did you expect?
Nope. Player X is some sort of Good, Player Z is a LG Paladin, Player, um, Q was LG and now I think he's maybe LN.
As for him NOT healing me for reasons of RP... well, it's a legit idea, as I do play a fairly shifty character. However, I would point out that it doesn't come off as RP, it comes off as just not caring, ignoring me (the player), not paying attention. It's not as if I ask him for healing and he folds his arms and smiles and says no, it's more like I waggle my fingers in his face to get his attention and ask for healing, and he stares at me blankly for three or four seconds and then goes back to his iPad.
The healing complaint isn't that he's a dick, it's that he doesn't seem to be doing his job. And honestly, why have such mammoth ability scores if you're going to "Hold Action" like 80 percent of the time? Shouldn't an 18/18/18/14/16/20 heavily armored like 40ish AC fighter 1/cleric 11 be rushing into battle and tanking? If he was Jonny-on-the-spot with healing, I wouldn't complain, but his tactic is more like "stand back and wait for someone to get dropped, be stingy with channeling/healing, and then rush in and pull the bodies out" so he can heal ability damage or Raise Dead after combat.
There seems to be some interest in DM's style and his approach to the rules. I would say that he's not totally innocent here; he's kind of a rules lawyer himself, and he admits that he's stubborn and he doesn't want to back down when somebody is challenging his DM authority. Sometimes X is right, often the issue is ambiguous and it's a matter of conflicting interpretations. Sometimes the issue is trivial, sometimes not.
However, the bigger issue is not whether or not he's right, the main issue is that while X and Y would probably be happy to sit and kick around a rules discussion in a gentlemanly manner for twenty minutes at a stretch, some of us at the table just want to play the game. We don't care whether or not a ruling is correct so much as we want to get to the next encounter, the next monster, the next surprise, the next ROUND even. DM is one of them.
He said last night that MY approach is the one that works the best with him: when he throws something I don't like at me (like, my character is flatfooted because the BBEG got a better initiative roll, even though my character was rushing to the scene and is staring at the BBEG, studying him with weapon drawn and ready to act), I lay out my argument in about ten words or less, and when he tells me why he thinks I'm wrong, I don't whine and complain or pull out books to cite precedent. I shrug and say, "okay." In this particular case DM started rolling his attack damage and then stopped, looked up for a moment, and said, "Okay. Regular AC will do." If I had been Player X, there wouldn't be an "okay." There'd be a 5 minute litany on why, even though it's DM's game and he can do as he pleases, the ruling would be thus-and-so if X were DM and here's what the rules are regarding surprise rounds and initiative and blah blah blah, and meanwhile other players are drumming their fingers on the table and DM is grinding his teeth and losing patience.
It's a matter of stubborn personalities clashing, to be sure, and sometimes DM loses his patience and it can affect the game. But in DM's defence, 4 out of 5 of us are perfectly able to adjust to DM's style and are willing to put up with an occasional call that might be a bit questionable in the heat of the moment because DM runs a great home-brew game that's challenging and extremely engaging.
|
It's hard to comment on another gamer's group, because each one is its own tiny culture with its own expectations.
I've been running games for years and years, and I have a few simple rules that keep my sessions free of as much lawyering as possible (right or wrong, the behavior is disrespectful)
1) On any ruling, you may correct the GM one time. He or She will be gracious and listen to your challenge.
2) If the GM chooses to ignore your correction or changes their mind later, you may not challenge again. It has become a house rule.
I don't want my players to feel unheard, but they need to trust that the rulings I make are for the betterment of everyone involved. Sometimes I need a magical fireball to start mundane fires, and sometimes I need it not to, I will take care of the players if they have faith in the story, and if you have a positive, trusting relationship with your players, you should be able to get them to behave on the same grounds.
|
|
The key concept in your complaint is the idea of random changes. If a change was really random without intent, then correcting it once for your GM should straighten things out. Sometimes, however, the story's continuity demands the GM exercise creative license. If you cannot stand house rules or GM discretion, then you need to play in a VERY specific kind of game and let your GM's know beforehand that you do not recognize their authority over the books'
I love GM license, I think that it allows tabletop RPGs to exceed the limitations of video games that are bound by the RAW.
So, while I memorize rules with the best of them, and respect the effort that goes into balancing and fine-tuning this game, When dice hit the table, the GM has to always be the final say. Tabletop is not a democracy, and if the game you like to play is about arguing, then it's not the tabletop I recognize and play.
|
|
You seem concerned with equity for players, and I respect that, so I feel instead of trying to clarify my beliefs, I can give an example:
The party rools poorly on some perception checks and is ambushed, a surprise round arrow happens to crit the healer (oracle of life) unconscious. I immediately see that this could be a very sad waste of a cool group if I don't do something. So, instead of taking their next turn to execute the healer, the ambushers burst from hiding, one grabs her and pulls a knife (using all his actions that round to do so, move to grab knife while getting to unconscious healer, standard to "grapple" or pick her up in one arm)
(and so far, all rules followed, have turned it into a hostage situation instead of a murder. I just want to start with this showing I always prefer to use rules first rather than breaking them...)
Now, unfortunately, my players are a bit too timid, and when they are commanded to drop all weapons and lie face down on the ground or the girl "gets it," none of them spring into action to save her THAT round when he couldn't have anything readied yet. Two of them comply and lie face down, yelling at the rogue to do the same. Now, the rogue is named Vi, and this is her first character ever. They are around level 7 at this point, and she is really worried her character will die... and to my great pleasure, decides to NOT give in to the ambushers' demands. She asks me if she can pull out a dagger without him noticing while she drops her rapier and then throw it into his throat.
According to the rules, this never would have worked.
a) she had never said she was concealing any daggers, so the rules state they are not concealed.
b) It's a standard to retrieve the dagger from concealment, and a standard to throw it.
c) It was evening, and it had been established verbally before the encounter that they all had concealment (which was how the ambush happened in the first place) which means no sneak attack.
However... in that moment, I could not think of a COOLER way for this encounter to unfold for this group. So it happened. She rolled very well, knocked him to staggered in a single sneak attack, and the fight commenced, all very epic and fun times were had.
Does that mean that from then on I should allow sneak attacks in concealment or let this rogue walk around pulling and throwing concealed daggers in a single round at shadowy figures for sneak attack?
No. I still rely on the rules, I still go by the book, but in that moment the players trusted me as a GM to give them a good game, and it was my responsibility to understand exactly when my friends' enjoyment is more important then 100% RAW.
To the OP. If the group wants to keep the player don't do stuff to inflame the issue. Instead make use of the rules lawyer instead.
The DM casts a spell and not 100% sure how it affects work ask the rules lawyer to explain it. If your just trying to get on with the game does it matter who is *Right*? If it does not matter who is *exactly* right just go with the way the rules lawyer says the rule works.
This means less arguments and the rules lawyer gets to have fun also. The group has more fun as the game moves at a faster pace. The DM has more fun as a whole lot of stress went away and he has off-loaded some of his work on to a player. Its a win win.
Hope that helps.
Firstly, I wouldn't think so harshly about the DM. When you are playing with friends, or trying to "make nice" (like when gaming with the dad of your kids' friends), you sometimes give a little too much, particularly when it comes to character creation. I have done this, and often regretted it. On occasion, I discovered the person I was trying to make nice with had ulterior motives; either was a bit of a cheater, or intended to abuse my generosity and use it against the other players.
It's interesting that the first thought at the slashing motion by the DM was that he wanted to kill the character. Most of the time, when not used by an actual mob boss with an actual army of gangsters, that gesture can mean "he's fired" or "he's out" or just "cut him off." That would suggest the DM thinks it's time to ask him to leave. Or maybe just not invite him anymore.
As to him losing it, obviously these two have a history. My feeling is that if the history is such that the DM is shouting down the RL at this point, it is time for the DM and this player to at least take a break from each other, if not the downright removal of the RL from the game.
I've had rules lawyers. Some worse than others. The mild ones I not only can take, I actually encourage them, including them by asking their opinion on an occasional rule before I make a ruling. This makes them happy. It keeps them involved. They bark less, sometimes not at all, when I tweak or change a little something, or focus more on roleplay rather than rolling the dice, to resolve a situation.
The bad ones, as X sounds to be, argue anything that will give them an advantage. And if you pay close attention, you will notice that they twist the argument in the opposite way when it would benefit the DM or some other player. They want the advantage only for themselves, so their logic usually is worse than spotty. That this guy is hoarding and also refusing to heal others at least indicates that he is hoping to hog glory, if not being a downright jerk.
But here's where this sort of thing always confounds me. What on earth is his hoarding and refusal to heal and quest for greatness, for? Compared to what? Compared to other imaginary beings? If not, then is he comparing his imaginary glory and treasure to some real person? Either is incredibly petty and silly. I had a player hoard gold every chance he got. He bragged at how rich his character was. Compared to what? Or who? Donald Trump? His money is real.
You probably don't want to hang around with anybody with those kinds of priorities.
Firstly, I wouldn't think so harshly about the DM. When you are playing with friends, or trying to "make nice" (like when gaming with the dad of your kids' friends), you sometimes give a little too much, particularly when it comes to character creation. I have done this, and often regretted it. On occasion, I discovered the person I was trying to make nice with had ulterior motives; either was a bit of a cheater, or intended to abuse my generosity and use it against the other players.
It's interesting that the first thought at the slashing motion by the DM was that he wanted to kill the character. Most of the time, when not used by an actual mob boss with an actual army of gangsters, that gesture can mean "he's fired" or "he's out" or just "cut him off." That would suggest the DM thinks it's time to ask him to leave. Or maybe just not invite him anymore.
As to him losing it, obviously these two have a history. My feeling is that if the history is such that the DM is shouting down the RL at this point, it is time for the DM and this player to at least take a break from each other, if not the downright removal of the RL from the game.
I've had rules lawyers. Some worse than others. The mild ones I not only can take, I actually encourage them, including them by asking their opinion on an occasional rule before I make a ruling. This makes them happy. It keeps them involved. They bark less, sometimes not at all, when I tweak or change a little something, or focus more on roleplay rather than rolling the dice, to resolve a situation.
The bad ones, as X sounds to be, argue anything that will give them an advantage. And if you pay close attention, you will notice that they twist the argument in the opposite way when it would benefit the DM or some other player. They want the advantage only for themselves, so their logic usually is worse than spotty. That this guy is hoarding and also refusing to heal others at least indicates that he is hoping to hog glory, if not being a downright jerk.
But here's where...
Healing issue: Y thinks he either doesn't really know how to play a cleric or has no zest for it. The healbot aspect, anyway. He can be useful at OOC healing like ability damage, poison use, raise dead, stuff like that. The only spell I can remember him casting in the last combat was Death Ward - on himself.
Somebody asked at some point if X is the party treasurer - the answer is yes.
You asked about his motivation - can't speak to that. If he just really wants to "be the hero", seems like he should take risks every now and then. I guess it's possible that he's just so afraid of how dangerous DM's game is that he's made surviving into his entire character, which is actually kind of sad.
Anyway, thanks for all the input and the chance to vent. Sorry, ShadowChemosh - it's not my game to cede extra authority to X, and if this was the way we'd go I think the game would sour for me. I kind of like Kydeem D'Morcaine's suggestion of delaying rules questions til after combat, but I think I may add a caveat.
If, in post-session discussion, Player's rules problem is conceded by DM, no retcon required - but noting Player gets an XP bump for the good call. If DM does not concede, no XP bump, but thanks for tryin'.
If, in post-session discussion, DM has a rules problem with a Player (incorrect AC, can't cast that spell at that level, feat doesn't work like that, etc) and discussion leads to realization that Player is at fault, Player gets XP hit. If Player turned out to be playing by the rules after all, no change.
If a Player makes a rules argument in-game, and won't let up after the DM says, "I'm making the call, it's this way", right or wrong, XP penalty.
This actually gives X an incentive to suck it in until game session is over, when DM is always more than willing to have a rules/ruling discussion.
Take a break. Simpler games are harder to rules lawyer.
Minimus is very difficult to rules lawyer, for instance...
|
|
My favorite way of dealing with this:
"This is how I'm ruling it now. We can discuss it after the game. For now, we're moving on."
This has the added benefit of the players forgetting the argument completely by the end of the session. Thus, I no longer need to argue it. :)
I can see this rules lawyer trying to keep track of everything and argue it all afterwards, but I think a few sessions of being too busy with that to actually play might teach him a lesson.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Threads like these really make me appreciate my group.
I'm not sure why, but since I got back into gaming I haven't had trouble finding players. While it's never pleasant asking someone to leave a group, it's an unpleasantness that is short lived compared to dealing with a problem player every week. I've done it twice (and a half) in the past 4 years and everyone appreciated the peace at the table that resulted. The only regrets I have about it are that I didn't do it sooner.
Wow, all the hate directed at the rules lawyer (who, admittedly sounds like a jerk), and little to no criticism of the GM. To be honest, the GM sounds like the bigger jerk to me in this case, and I HATE rule lawyers. The GM sounds petty and immature throughout the story, whining and moaning and blowing up on this guy. Granted, his behavior can be conveniently blamed on the rule lawyer, but I would not want to play under a GM who allowed that type of persistent nagging to grind the game to a halt week in, week out. I also think that the conversation you guys had after the last session pretty much means you should give X the boot. It is next to impossible to recover from a situation where one person is trash talked to that degree (a lot of which was petty conjecture, OR poking fun at his Johnny Awesome Cleric that the GM allowed him to create) and resume an equal relationship afterwards.
Point X to the door, and hope against all tenets of human nature that your GM isn't a whiny little weasel and that X was the root of the entire problem.
As a GM and a rules lawyer i normally just handle it after the game, when gming i operate a one complaint policy but i am quite lucky as another player who also gms tends to back me up if theres a call i've made thats wrong but for the "good of the game". As a player i keep my lawyering in check unless death is imminent or everyones not sure whats going to happen, since we play up to high levels this does happen occationally.
I also try to enforce rapid combat turns, if it takes you more than ten second to roll a die and add number to it theres something wrong but i take a break on that for our newer players when they cast a spell for the first time etc. Basicly have the spell your casting/combat move infront of you when your turn comes around, explain what it does and the save dcs or what cmd/ac you hit and the results.
In the end due to these rules(which our other gms also use) if anyone bogs down combat they get a groan and a hail of plastic cups thrown at them, as a gm i don't really have to police my players since they all want to play the game not argue about it. I'm pretty sure if your problem player turned up at our table everyone would hammer him for his constant harping, if everyone at the table is in agreement then the rules lawyers opinion will matter less and he should calm down to important issues only like you both seem to have.