I most definitely would not describe your group as RAI by any stretch because it has obvious house rules. Nothing wrong with that, but mislabeling is a peeve of mine. I would describe you guys as a "Rules Loose" game.
I do agree that the RAW player is being a jerk and intentionally targeting another player, which is unacceptable.
I would talk with your DM with Player 2 present and decide together how to tackle the RAW player issue. My personal suggestion is to explain to him that the group is rules loose and that ignoring rules that detract from fun is OK.
Well being a player that like RAW quite a bit , i will agree with @Ascalaphus and @blackbloodtroll , when you enter a new table more than ever you only have RAW to guide you until you learn the ropes. Just explain which are the exact changes to RAW made and the player should deal much better with it.
I have seen favoritism to extreme points , as long as the same rules apply to everyone , i have always been able to accept them once i knew exactly what changed.
Typically, finding a buyer for Huge-sized items is going to be next to impossible. Your GM is pretty lenient if he justs let's you sell a Huge +1 earthbreaker to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, even at half price.It's not that the ability is broken, It's that it could give more wealth than you wanted. A giant with twice as much wealth for gear as he gives is better than a giant with as much gear as he gives. If things resize you have to worry about them just keeping the gear instead of selling it.How is that a worry? Isn't this the same thing you go through with all magical loot, 'Is it worth keeping, or should we sell it?'
How is following the rules being lenient?
If the selling value of an item is equal or less of the purchase value of the city then the PCs can sell it to that city.
Definitely talk it out - with the DM first. I've been Player 1 (even to calculating others' encumbrances, though not pressing the issue), and I've been Player 2 with a newcomer questioning house rules. Letting it stew never helps.
More to the point of why I decided to post, this is not an RAI issue. Title is misleading. RAI (or Rules as Intended) is very clear that they wanted small character to feel small. Small weapons, lower carry blah blah blah
I think the more accurate term would be "rules-heavy player in a mostly rules-light game."
|
More to the point of why I decided to post, this is not an RAI issue. Title is misleading. RAI (or Rules as Intended) is very clear that they wanted small character to feel small. Small weapons, lower carry blah blah blahI think the more accurate term would be "rules-heavy player in a mostly rules-light game."
Well, "rules heavy" may be a bit too much.
That implies an extreme, that does not seem present in the examples.
"Rules-minded player in a rules-light game"?
I think the RAI/RAW terms don't really apply here - both terms assume that the reader is trying to follow the rules (either in spirit or to the letter), while in the examples you mentioned your group has decided to not use the original rules and implement your own rules instead.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, most groups (including mine) use house rules.
However I think part of the problem here was that (or at least I suspect that) your GM didn't outline those house rules ahead of time. If they're introduced mid-game (or at least appear to, since this seems like the first time it came up for your new player) and blatantly favors one player over another (no no, Joe can use the longsword because it... Uh... Resizes!), that can cause frustration and even hostility.
Note that both 'contended points' (items resize and don't bother tracking encumbrance) are areas where your group does not use the Pathfinder system rules, but haven't actually defined is as house rules. If I were to join a game that said "Pathfinder" and either didn't list house rules at all or listed ones that did not mention that they've house ruled encumbrance and item sizes, I would expect encumbrance tracking to be a thing and I'd assume that gear might not fit my small character. If the GM then handwaves it when the drawback comes up for a different character, I would be surprised and probably a little annoyed.
Either way I don't think player 1 is "in the wrong" here, though he's not really going about it the best way either.
I think the best way to handle it is to talk to the GM and the player, explain that you've ignored sizing and encumbrance for a long time and apologize for not informing him more clearly of your rule variations, then spend 15 minutes making a Word document that clearly outlines your groups house-rules, whatever they may be.