|
I can't seem to find the old Willful Ignorance thread, and this is slightly different, so here's part 2.
I have a dilemma. In general, I am a rules lawyer. I try to be diplomatic about it. Unless the situation is egregious, I avoid pointing it out immediately, and more say let it fly for now but next time this, or something like that. I tend to try to avoid disrupting the flow of combat, but I must admit I do more than I'd like.
My problem is this: at some tables, I am pretty much told to not be a rules lawyer. So, in those cases, I simply ignore some rules. If an ally charges 60ft and draws a weapon, I ignore it. I notice these subtleties that can, in rare occasions, even possibly change the tide of a fight against us, but since I am discouraged from correcting the rules, I ignore it. I understand most of these are minutiae, but still, it's willfully ignoring the rules. Am I in the wrong?
|
|
If it is something that minor, I would not risk antagonizing the DM if they have explicitly told you not to nitpick. Now, of course, I am not that much of a rules lawyer, so I obviously don't feel too strongly about this sort of thing.
Rules lawyers, fairly or unfairly, are the source of lot of jerk behavior at the table (although clocking in behind "CN" characters and paladins). It is probably that perception more than any actual behavior that the DM is trying to nip in the bud.
|
|
Normally, it is something minor. But in the times that it isn't? If that 60ft charge by the pouncing barbarian that drew a weapon mid-charge kills the BBEG that would've killed a party member the turn after? Or any other similar charge situation?
I specifically avoid being the jerk player, and most of the times it works, but there's those times where people have such an opposition to people who knows the rules like we do that they completely shut us out. Also, there is a tendency for the player to be more in the wrong than the GM, so when we correct them and mess up their plan, they blame us for ruining their fun. I know the rule is have fun, but shouldn't it be have fun within the boundaries of the core rules?
Also, it's not often the GM, but more often the other players. Many GMs see me as a tool to settle disagreements.
|
|
I think most people can appreciate the quick rules clarification, it is the ones that are counter intuitive or convoluted and drag things out when pressed by a player make things suck.
Also when a player tries to press a rule and doesn't know the whole setup it sucks. A couple weeks ago I had a player demanding to know how enemies were so quick kill his familiar scout when they just received perception checks that he didn't know about prior to sending the rat in. Just after that he was demanding to know why a creature wasn't taking damage from standing in acid when the book said he took a potion that gives him resistance before the PCs arrive. In both cases I told him "It is right, your character has no way of knowing why" and he wouldn't let it go. I have since started saying "This seems very odd to you" prior to events like this to preempt any dispute and foreshadow that there is some other element at work.
|
|
Normally, it is something minor. But in the times that it isn't? If that 60ft charge by the pouncing barbarian that drew a weapon mid-charge kills the BBEG that would've killed a party member the turn after? Or any other similar charge situation?
I specifically avoid being the jerk player, and most of the times it works, but there's those times where people have such an opposition to people who knows the rules like we do that they completely shut us out. Also, there is a tendency for the player to be more in the wrong than the GM, so when we correct them and mess up their plan, they blame us for ruining their fun. I know the rule is have fun, but shouldn't it be have fun within the boundaries of the core rules?
If the other players are the ones shutting you down, make sure that your rules lawyering is not of the "kicking them when they are down" variety
For example, when the barbarian draws his weapon during a 60ft. charge and knocks the BBEG down to 0hp. Then on the BBEG's turn it takes a standard action knocking the barbarian into the negatives before fainting. If you were to call out a nitpicky rule which potentially negates the moment that the palyer of the barbarian just got, I would call that being a jerk.
I know that is a contrived example, but the rules are in service of having fun telling an awesome story. Placing rules over fun so blatantly can make you a jerk player, especially when the DM does not call it out. Maybe the DM knows the rule and wanted to let the Barbarian have a chance to shine and do something awesome. That is why you wait until after the game to tell the DM.
|
|
Here's another example, this time playing a scenario you have GM'd before (but not played as of yet).
In this scenario, there is an effect that lowers your charisma and intelligence, and if it drops below 3, you are effectively "dead." I had a character that had a skill this low, and failed the first save. On the second time it triggered, I should have "died" yet the GM gave me a save when I knew there wasn't one. I did not correct the GM on their mistake, and my character lived.
Should I have corrected the GM and died, or do what I did and just let in pass with that nagging feeling in the back of my head?
|
I think most people can appreciate the quick rules clarification, it is the ones that are counter intuitive or convoluted and drag things out when pressed by a player make things suck.
Also when a player tries to press a rule and doesn't know the whole setup it sucks. A couple weeks ago I had a player demanding to know how enemies were so quick kill his familiar scout when they just received perception checks that he didn't know about prior to sending the rat in. Just after that he was demanding to know why a creature wasn't taking damage from standing in acid when the book said he took a potion that gives him resistance before the PCs arrive. In both cases I told him "It is right, your character has no way of knowing why" and he wouldn't let it go. I have since started saying "This seems very odd to you" prior to events like this to preempt any dispute and foreshadow that there is some other element at work.
So this may be a failing of mine as a GM, but I just tell them why. "he has acid resistance" or "It has constant freedom of movement".
|
|
Normally, it is something minor. But in the times that it isn't? If that 60ft charge by the pouncing barbarian that drew a weapon mid-charge kills the BBEG that would've killed a party member the turn after? Or any other similar charge situation?
I specifically avoid being the jerk player, and most of the times it works, but there's those times where people have such an opposition to people who knows the rules like we do that they completely shut us out. Also, there is a tendency for the player to be more in the wrong than the GM, so when we correct them and mess up their plan, they blame us for ruining their fun. I know the rule is have fun, but shouldn't it be have fun within the boundaries of the core rules?
If the other players are the ones shutting you down, make sure that your rules lawyering is not of the "kicking them when they are down" variety
For example, when the barbarian draws his weapon during a 60ft. charge and knocks the BBEG down to 0hp. Then on the BBEG's turn it takes a standard action knocking the barbarian into the negatives before fainting. If you were to call out a nitpicky rule which potentially negates the moment that the palyer of the barbarian just got, I would call that being a jerk.
I know that is a contrived example, but the rules are in service of having fun telling an awesome story. Placing rules over fun so blatantly can make you a jerk player, especially when the DM does not call it out. Maybe the DM knows the rule and wanted to let the Barbarian have a chance to shine and do something awesome. That is why you wait until after the game to tell the DM.
I see what you're saying here. Generally, it doesn't get to the enemy turning on the PC, normally they say I charge 60ft, draw my weapon and attack and I say you can't do that (rough generalization). So you're saying fun supersedes rules?
EDIT: Let it go, but after the scenario take them aside and tell them the rule? I fully see how this is one of the better resolvers, but there are PC life or death situations caused by a single misruling.
|
|
Not for big things so don't try to put any sweeping generalizations into my mouth, but for little, nitpicky things like this then yes, that is my style of DMing. When I am a player it is up to whoever's table I am stilling at, but if I am behind the screen I am really not going to appreciate a player calling out crap like this if I am conciously trying to give someone a "moment".
EDIT: In my system of table management, you generally get up to one minute to reference a rule you think I got wrong and show me. If you are trying to correct me to permit something I am sympathetic. If you are trying to correct me to tear down what another player is trying I am far less favorably disposed. Anything else is a great thing to talk to me about between sessions, since communicating out of game is the right way to keep a campaign healthy.
|
|
There are sometimes where GMs have reasons for not calling out the obvious rules error -- I've done the same thing when the pcs are doing so much damage that it doesn't matter what they do they are going to kill the npc.
Sometimes a GM will make a conscious decision to "let it go" if the player is a difficult one and they don't want to get into yet another rules argument in the middle of combat.
I, for one, appreciate people coming to me and giving me clarification on a rule, even if it is in the middle of combat. However, I appreciate it more if they give me a chance to respond first. The ones that pipe up as soon as the question is asked w/out giving me a chance to give my ruling annoy the @#$@ out of me. I chalk it up to me being the girl on the table. (j/k)
Here is my tip for those that want to rules lawyer....
Don't sweat the small stuff, learn to let the minute details go and put the lawyer hat on for blatent rules violations. Fun doesn't always trump rules, however, nitpicky debating always trumps fun for everyone
|
|
It just depends on the Judge at the table. I have seen judges who prefer to be corrected in game, some that prefer to be corrected after game, and some who are insulted if you even hint at the fact that they don't know every rule in the book.
My first time playing with a GM, I will bite my tongue and see how things go. Only after I have felt out the GM and how they will react do I bring up mistakes on rules. One of the reasons I wait is that the GM also needs to get an idea about you and how much game knowledge you have. A GM being corrected by a stranger will not trust what you say and want to double check you.
|
|
The following happened at an online game about 15 months ago.
As the fearless paladin I was, I took the lead, slightly fatigued due to altitude sickness. I ended up face-to-face with a large creature with deadly claws on each arm. I dutifully declared it my smite target and attacked.
Six second later, it retaliated. With two powerful swipes, it knocked me down, killing me outright.
The table GM was somewhat shocked by this, and allowed me to use a shirt reroll on the monster's damage. It did slightly less damage, resulting in my survival.
After the session, I looked up the policy and discussed this with the GM, and we agreed that I should be dead. Thus, this was my first permanent character death.
Whether or not you agree that this was the correct course of action is debatable. But I have no regrets.
I think you did the right thing. But don't worry--if it's the scenario I'm thinking of, the creature also had rend automatically when it hits with both claws, which would have eviscerated you even further.
|
|
Not for big things so don't try to put any sweeping generalizations into my mouth, but for little, nitpicky things like this then yes, that is my style of DMing. When I am a player it is up to whoever's table I am stilling at, but if I am behind the screen I am really not going to appreciate a player calling out crap like this if I am conciously trying to give someone a "moment".
EDIT: In my system of table management, you generally get up to one minute to reference a rule you think I got wrong and show me. If you are trying to correct me to permit something I am sympathetic. If you are trying to correct me to tear down what another player is trying I am far less favorably disposed. Anything else is a great thing to talk to me about between sessions, since communicating out of game is the right way to keep a campaign healthy.
My apologies for making a generalization.
Asmel, thank you for your example, I'll probably try something like that next time.
Thank you for the other responses, but what happens at your tables, or general rules lawyer rules aren't what I'm looking for. These are situations where the table has told me not to make rules corrections, and then make rules mistakes that lead to a change in the outcome.
|
|
Thank you for the other responses, but what happens at your tables, or general rules lawyer rules aren't what I'm looking for. These are situations where the table has told me not to make rules corrections, and then make rules mistakes that lead to a change in the outcome.
at that point report the infraction to the coordinator and let him/her deal with it ... they can take a look at the situation from both sides as the impartial party and make a final ruling.
|
|
Thank you for the other responses, but what happens at your tables, or general rules lawyer rules aren't what I'm looking for. These are situations where the table has told me not to make rules corrections, and then make rules mistakes that lead to a change in the outcome.at that point report the infraction to the coordinator and let him/her deal with it ... they can take a look at the situation from both sides as the impartial party and make a final ruling.
I don't know Kiinyan, but I've heard stories from others of similar situations. For instance, players at events in other regions where the coordinator has drunk the Kool-Aid as well and the whole venue uses the same wrong rule consistently (for instance, allowing 40 ft or higher vertical jumps because "it's a monk--they can jump high" and allowing characters to take full attacks while also drawing items without quick draw, handing them to someone else, and more all in one turn). When the new player GMed once, the other players went over their head to the coordinator and got the ruling reversed to the wrong ruling. It's hard to make a stir for the new player because the only option at that point is to report the venue to the VC, and they will probably wind up making major enemies of the entire venue if they do.
|
|
So, I wanted to echo Thea: I generally appreciate it if players point out a rules mistake that I make, even in combat. Usually my response is either "oh, right!" or "Uh, I'm not familiar with that, can you look that up for me, and let's keep it moving for now." Basically, normally it only takes a few seconds. Frankly, there are so many rules that we make mistakes all the time...not willfully.
On the other hand, there's a big difference between pointing out a rules mistake "He charged last round, and should have -2 AC!" and starting some sort of massive rules debate at the table. If things get convoluted, I am going to make a ruling and keep the game going...and I'm not going to retcon something that happened rounds and rounds before (unless there is a player death involved). No freaking out over a ruling that you don't like :-)
|
I am probably the wrong one to talk to, since I have a bad tendency to be be a rules lawyer. However, there is a good way and a bad way to do that.
Example:
At a local convention, I was playing in a game. The BBEG was using Flame Strike, and the GM was rolling 3d6 damage, readying "1d6 +1/levels as 1d6 / level", instead of 1d6+3. Not sure of the spell, while it was not my turn, I dug through the CRB, and found the listing. Once I had found it, and read it (twice!), I waited for a pause, and politely pointed it out.
In this case, the GM thanked me, rather embarrassed, and corrected the damage to the characters. He then pointed out that he had done the same thing in a previous running of the game. He also allowed us to reverse the usage of some expendable items, and then we moved on.
Now, as it happens, it was looking really bad for the "home team" at this time, as in a potential TPK. I would have been fine with him leaving the effect as it was, and moving on, but he gained a lot of respect from me when he reversed his decision (properly, I might add).
This was definitely a "teachable moment" for everyone at the table, and I believe that everyone saw it as such.
Also, as an FYI, I would be as likely to point out the situation were it a PC that was misusing the spell... such as the OP's example above. I might have said something like "Are you sure that you can draw, charge 60', and attack?" Then, wait to see the reaction, having the page open to the rule, you could have then taught the table the correct way of doing this.
If you don't point this out (in a polite manner), then it is equally likely that someone at the table will remember the incorrect way of doing it, and will "learn" from it.. using the incorrect method the next time they play.
And I agree with Nani... I appreciate it when others point out my mistakes (in a polite manner). I personally want to play the game as "correctly" as possible... and am always learning.
Which brings up a question... it is commonplace at a table in PFS for everyone to "aid another" on diplomacy rolls... and each one that succeeds adds +2 to the roll. There have been people at my table (when I was running a PFS "home game") that said that Aid Another doesn't work that way. My response was that since this is PFS, and "everyone does it that way in PFS", we'll do it that way for now. Of course, when I took the time to read Aid Another, it does not saying anything about only one person is allowed to aid another. hmm...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
By all means, if I make a mistake, call me out on it.
Now here's a question, if the GM fraks up, should he correct it afterwards?
Example: I misread the identification rules for the "bag of holding" in <redacted> and said the wizard did identify the bag of devouring correctly. So I allowed them to 'take back' stuffing the (dead) bard in it. It was later that I realized I'd goofed and that it should have been bard brand extradimensional chow. This allowed the party to pool money to get him raised. We still joke about it, and bags of holding in general.
Should the player have come up and said "Whoa, I read the rules and I should be really truly dead, not only mostly dead?" If he had I'd have *shrugged* and said, "My mistake. No worries."
Does that make me a bad GM? Am I willfully ignorant?
|
|
I feel your pain. I have had a great many discussions about this both on these forums, and in person games.
My argument is this: The reason I play Pathfinder, is because I like a stable rule set so no matter where I go in the known world, people are playing with the same rules.
Now, I have no problem with people making house rules, like 'we ignore weight and encumbrance, our BFS is also a pack mule!" (ok it bugs the hell out of me, really) but what I have the hardest time with is people who have no idea what the rule actually is!
For example, the flight encumbrance rule is cobbled together by reading the armor rules about no medium armor on flyers, and then shoehorning that with the encumbrance rule stating that medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor. I have no problem when people haven't cross referenced rules to that degree. I just wait, and point it out at the end of session.
Other things like charging 60' and drawing make me insane, and I point them out as they happen.
Biggest peeves:
1) Archetype combinations that are blatantly disallowed by the rules.
2) People who say, "I know X is expressly against the rule, and I do see there where they put it in bold, italics, and even went so far as to up the font from 12 pt to 16 pt, but I still think they intended ________.
3) Failing to at least pretend encumbrance is an issue.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
I have no issues with a player/rules lawyer pointing out a mistake to me during a session. The approach on that correction is the biggest issue I have when presented. If the correction is presented quickly and in a means to educate and not demean, then I welcome that correction. If a rules mistake starts a lengthy debate, then a snap ruling needs to be made and get the game back on track with a request to bring up the ruling after the session.
|
|
I have no issues with a player/rules lawyer pointing out a mistake to me during a session. The approach on that correction is the biggest issue I have when presented. If the correction is presented quickly and in a means to educate and not demean, then I welcome that correction. If a rules mistake starts a lengthy debate, then a snap ruling needs to be made and get the game back on track with a request to bring up the ruling after the session.
This is exactly the way it should be. GMs can't be expected to know every single rule by heart ... players should be able to speak up to remind a GM what a rule is or how something works ... but there shouldn't be a need for debates or arguements while gaming
There's no arguing in Pathfinder sheeeeeesh
|
|
I am probably the wrong one to talk to, since I have a bad tendency to be be a rules lawyer. However, there is a good way and a bad way to do that.
Example:
At a local convention, I was playing in a game. The BBEG was using Flame Strike, and the GM was rolling 3d6 damage, readying "1d6 +1/levels as 1d6 / level", instead of 1d6+3. Not sure of the spell, while it was not my turn, I dug through the CRB, and found the listing. Once I had found it, and read it (twice!), I waited for a pause, and politely pointed it out.I'm curious what spell you are referring to - Flame Stike which is a fairly high level spell does indeed do 1d6 per level damage, max of 15d6 (half of which is divine half of which is fire damage). It is a 4th level Druid, 5th level Cleric/Oracle/Inquisitor spell so that damage is quite reasonable for the level (it is a great spell that I've see used a lot at high levels).
But since it is a 4th level spell and you are talking about 3d6 as what the DM was rolling I'm assuming you meant a much lower level spell or class ability. Just curious exactly which spell you were talking about.
Oops... wasn't payng attention to what I was typing... meant Produce FLame
|
I'm in the camp of "Point it out to me right then". I'd rather know now than have to go back and look it up later. The other day we had to look something up about the Alchemist. I don't remember what it was, but while we were looking we noticed that you get to make a save for half damage against Bomb splash damage.
No one can know all the rules, there are just too many. I'd rather be corrected than help spread misinformation.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Recently, I was GMming a first level table at a con with a table of half new players and half experienced players. Without spoiling or going into the specific scenario, I had a player (Player A) attempt to correct me on certain rules that, if followed strictly, would have potentially resulted in Character B's death. I chose to follow the spirit of what Player B (an experienced player, but one who did not know the *exact* wording of this monster ability) intended to do, because it frankly didn't make much sense for me to operate his actions strictly as he worded them. It involved line of sight and such, and was extremely, extremely nitpicky. Player A could not give me a quick rules citation, but did hold the table up for about 15 minutes arguing with me until Player C asked him to drop it. I later looked up the rule that he was discussing, and I think it was unclear - a gotcha move by a GM at best.
Perhaps it's one thing if your rules point is in defense of a player, but if it's in defense of the scenario, if it's nitpicky and if it doesn't make much sense with what is going on in the encounter, I'd greatly prefer to discuss it after the game.
|
|
In this scenario, there is an effect that lowers your charisma and intelligence, and if it drops below 3, you are effectively "dead."
Is this a specific side-affect of the effect or are you referring to ability damage in general? If the latter, you are not effectively "dead" when an ability score drops below 3. For all abilities except Constitution, if you take ability score damage equal to or in excess of your score, you fall into a coma. Only Con dropping to zero will kill you.
It is also important to note that most spells/effects that have a temporary duration will not drop a score below '1' regardless of the amount of damage. See the specific spell/effect for details.
|
|
Normally, it is something minor. But in the times that it isn't? If that 60ft charge by the pouncing barbarian that drew a weapon mid-charge kills the BBEG that would've killed a party member the turn after? Or any other similar charge situation?
If the barbarian couldn't draw on his full round speed he likely would have had his axe out then.