| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.
^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.
Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.
There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.
Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.
There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.
Strong disagree.
Players can and do have just as much investment in a game as the DM. If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.
Speaking as someone who GMs most all of the time, the idea that a GM has some special ownership of the game or the the GM is above following the rules is complete crap.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)
We're not talking about 'speaking up'. This is specifically in regards to having spoken up, having the GM make a decision, and then refusing to allow that decision to stand because 'it's not in the rules'.
What do you truly expect to gain from such a scenario? Unless you simply possess the social capital to browbeat the DM into submission, once the DM has made the call, that's the ruling. Arguing over a character death for an hour of game time simply robs the other players of what is their session time too. So even if the DM was completely wrong (say, he said that you have to beat the DC to make your save instead of match or beat it.), once you've spoken up, demonstrated the rule, and were told no, what do you want? Is it fair? No. The DM is making the wrong call. But once you've said/shown that and been denied, what more do you expect? You think that bickering and complaining will succeed where logic and reason failed?
Either you continue to play under the unfair call and its consequences, or you find a different way to spend your free time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players can and do have just as much investment in a game as the DM. If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.Speaking as someone who GMs most all of the time, the idea that a GM has some special ownership of the game or the the GM is above following the rules is complete crap.
Yup.
I'd say it is all in the context and the severity of the issue at stake. I've seen some pretty horrific calls by DM's that had rather severe game changing consequences. Sometimes its worth stopping the game to work it out before making a ruling. On the other hand I've seen players bring games to a screeching halt over nearly insignificant disputes.
I don't perceive rules lawyering as bad, so long as you actually know the rules and have a desire to see them consistently and accurately applied. I do consider a lack of understanding the rules or inconsistent application of them a problem. If a group has a rules lawyer or two its usually only a matter of time before the other players at the table have a precise enough understanding of the rules to diminish the need to occasionally stop the game. Its a problem that will solve itself as long as the other players are paying attention to the discussions.
This is not to say that all rules lawyers have the same tact, patience, rigor, and emotional detachment from the subject they are arguing. Some people are just jerks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)
We're not talking about 'speaking up'. This is specifically in regards to having spoken up, having the GM make a decision, and then refusing to allow that decision to stand because 'it's not in the rules'.
What do you truly expect to gain from such a scenario? Unless you simply possess the social capital to browbeat the DM into submission, once the DM has made the call, that's the ruling. Arguing over a character death for an hour of game time simply robs the other players of what is their session time too. So even if the DM was completely wrong (say, he said that you have to beat the DC to make your save instead of match or beat it.), once you've spoken up, demonstrated the rule, and were told no, what do you want? Is it fair? No. The DM is making the wrong call. But once you've said/shown that and been denied, what more do you expect? You think that bickering and complaining will succeed where logic and reason failed?
Either you continue to play under the unfair call and its consequences, or you find a different way to spend your free time.
The application of rule zero should not be a crutch for poor rules mastery. If your rules knowledge is so poor that you consistently find yourself declaring a rule 0 change to players who bring up stuff like "you only have to match the DC not beat it," then you should take a long and hard look in the mirror and ask if you really should be running a game at all, because that is the behavior of a very bad GM.
Aside from that, I would hope I would be playing in a game with someone who isn't so bull-headed that I have to brow-beat them for an hour before they can accept that they made a mistake. I would hope I'm playing with someone with enough self-respect and healthy enough ego that being wrong won't send him into a rage fit. I would hope that I'm playing with someone who is not so insecure in life that someone questioning a call of his will result in him doubling-down. Basically, I would hope I'm not playing with a complete tool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.
If it killed your beloved character beyond all hope of resurrections, fine. Argue your case, get out your phone, look it up on the forums, demonstrate why you're right and the GM is wrong.
Any other circumstances, let it go. Nobody died.
The GM has to make rulings constantly. Some of these rulings will be wrong. If you argue every time, it means you're having an argument instead of a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player is in a game for years with the same character, from 1st to 13th level (or whatever), it is completely unreasonable to expect the player to shut up or quit if a bad call that killed his character can't be resolved in 10 minutes or less.If it killed your beloved character beyond all hope of resurrections, fine. Argue your case, get out your phone, look it up on the forums, demonstrate why you're right and the GM is wrong.
Any other circumstances, let it go. Nobody died.
The GM has to make rulings constantly. Some of these rulings will be wrong. If you argue every time, it means you're having an argument instead of a game.
Again, this goes back to "irrelevant minutiae," vs "complex rules interaction with wide-reaching game impacts." If you find yourself in column A then you will probably be annoyed with the discussion, if you find yourself in column B you will probably be happy to have a resolution you can count on.
If you are a GM and you consistently find yourself in column A, you should probably look into a less rules-heavy system than Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.
Who said that?
I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.Who said that?
You, for one.
You, for one.I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.Who said that?
I don't see where I ever said anything about doing anything because "the DM is only one person."
Could you show me what you are talking about?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes DM's have access to information about what's going on that players don't. Sometimes this means that things the players think should work don't, and they don't know why.
This is where a bad rules lawyer will cause problems.
This is where cultivating trust in yourself as a DM will go a long way. If you are open and willing to accept criticism, and willing to hear rules questions; then one day when you say, "I understand your point, this is what happens," then people won't challenge it.
I know this to be true from personal experience on both sides of the screen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You, for one.I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.Who said that?I don't see where I ever said anything about doing anything because "the DM is only one person."
Could you show me what you are talking about?
Here and here. You may now proceed to "rules lawyer" your way out of it.
Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)
I've played in a variety of groups over the years and I believe that nearly everytime I have seen a DM use rule 0 (including myself in earlier years) it has been because of a failure of communication and a failure to set proper expectations in session 0. The few exceptions to those have been because of players that just didn't belong at the table in the first place due to maturity and personality conflicts.
If the DM communicates all the houserules and provides an explanation of them in session 0; briefly details how rule disputes should be handled; how player to player and character to character disputes will be handled; and sets expectations about how the campaign will be run and what kinds and how much input the players will have; then there should be virtually no need for rule 0.
I've taken the mantle of DM in groups where the players were constantly fighting and then...all of sudden, like someone cast calm emotions...everyone was chill. People cooperated, the game progressed, and everyone seemed to forget about their petty disputes. I'm not some magical 'player whisperer', all I did was set the ground rules and communicate with the players. Now, granted, my houserules are a bit different from most peoples and are designed to eliminate disputes (by preventing the cause, not by banning the arguments) but I don't think it takes that much.
My approach to solving rules disputes is pretty simple. If a player raises an objection I will do one of three things.
1. Advise him that his objection is incorrect and that the rule is covered under X, section Y of blah. I know most of the rules well enough to do this.
2. Admit I am unsure and if the matter is of little consequence make a judgement call, in the players favor, then I will research the issue after the game. If the player disagrees with me invoking fiat, I will move to rule 3.
3. We stop the game and research the issue as a whole group.
I've never found need to stop a game for more than 5 to 10 minutes while an issue was being researched. Most of us have the PRD on our phones or tablets, and we have multiple copies of every book at our disposal. Not to mention that the player with the least experience in our group has 'only' been playing for 15 years.
Here and here. You may now proceed to "rules lawyer" your way out of it.You, for one.I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her." If you are stopping the game for a significant amount of time for an issue that only you care about, you are a bad rules lawyer.Who said that?I don't see where I ever said anything about doing anything because "the DM is only one person."
Could you show me what you are talking about?
Perhaps you could quote specifically where I said, "because the GM is only one person?"
Barring that, perhaps you could quote a specific passage that you feel exemplifies that thought process?
I don't see it in the linked posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.
There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.
Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.
Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.
'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.
Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.
I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.
What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.
So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.
And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.
Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.
There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.
Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.
Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.
'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.
Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.
I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.
What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.
So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.
And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.
Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.
I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.
I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).
I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.
I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).
If you are separating that out, I suppose, but I've never thought of 'good' rules lawyering simply being competent with the ruleset, as that is rather inherent with the term.
Since the term assumes someone who is competent with the rules who will bring them up when they aren't followed, I consider the 'good' and 'bad' to depend on how they bring those rules up.
Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?
I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember.
As a GM I will say that rule is about your ability to make the rules. It is not rule 0 when you just have no idea what you are talking about.
Rule 0: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--Intentional rule change.
GM is just wrong: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--GM actually thinks that is how the rules work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With that aside a fair GM will bring you back to life once he finds out he is wrong. And as a player you should not hold the game hostage, even though I understand you being upset. I would however point out the rule between sessions. If the GM does not admit or know he is wrong then you have a decision to make.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)
It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.
I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.
I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).
If you are separating that out, I suppose, but I've never thought of 'good' rules lawyering simply being competent with the ruleset, as that is rather inherent with the term.
Since the term assumes someone who is competent with the rules who will bring them up when they aren't followed, I consider the 'good' and 'bad' to depend on how they bring those rules up.
Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?
I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?
I'm not saying that being knowledgeable about the rules makes you a good rules lawyer. I'm saying that argueing rules that can impact the greater game and not argueing one-off issues makes you a good rules lawyer. I have an additional point that, in general, being proficient with the rules makes you better at making that distinction.
None of that has anything to do with tact, or with being able to read a room.
Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?
I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?
Let me turn that question around: The DM rules that another player's character dies despite it clearly being a misinterpretation of the rule, and further denies the possibility of spending 5-10 minutes to make certain, or at least making the judgement call initially in the players favour.
I don't know, would you really be annoyed at the player insisting on making sure? Because quite honestly, I'd probably stand up myself and tell the DM to damn well look it up, despite it not being my character involved.
How you can even pretend that the arguing player is the one costing the others the game and not the DM is beyond me, really.
Except, very clearly in this scenario, the player has already gotten his say, and the DM has already made a call.
We're clearly talking past one another.
You are saying that for life or death issues, more time should be given to a potential rule mistake, to avoid needlessly killing a PC.
I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.
It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.
Yes, yes, every nerd ever is just so desiring of honest criticism online. In real life, of course, it all changes. Being put on the spot when you are supposed to be the one making the calls can easily fluster someone, or put them on the defensive, or make them double down on whatever they decided previously. And if these boards show anything, it's that nerds can argue ad infinitum on topics, regardless of the logic or reason in the opposing side's position.
But that's all actually irrelevant both to my point about DMs and the topic at hand. We're not talking about a bad DM. You can be a bad DM. If you lack social skills, even more likely. And bad DMs lose players. Terrible DMs probably lose all of their players and can't run their game anymore. I certainly wouldn't play with someone who was so rules weak and also unwilling to check and confirm a potential mistake.
None of that changes the responsibility of the players. Rules lawyers or no. "Don't prolong an argument that disrupts the game unless the DM is an idiot and then it's ok" is not a rule to live by.
A good GM should be ok with immediately agreeing to change a ruling if it is just wrong per the rules. Otherwise, ego is getting in the way of fairness.
A good player needs to know when it doesn't matter and when a ruling is wrong and it matters, to bring it up.
Our group is very collaborative on rules and willing to quickly look up things, and as many others have mentioned, move on to keep up pace when a ruling isn't importanat or game-changing. We pretty much respect the GM but there is an expectation that rules will be followed, and GM's don't mind being called on mistakes.
A happy medium.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bad rules lawyer generally does one of two things.
Only argues rules so that they work in their own favor and
Makes the assumption of perfection: that is that if they see a way "Raw says this!" then other instances of "Raw says the complete opposite!" must be wrong because
So outside of PFS, whats the argument that a druid can't take improved natural attack?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had one guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to his advantage in every situation, tried to impose rules on non-rules and story situations, argued often, stopped the game at times, was completely inflexible when it came to ad hoc rulings, killed momentum and spontaneity, and re-interpeted the rules to his advantage each time it suited him without a hint of irony.
Bad rules lawyer. (Bad! Off the couch!)
I had another guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to help me clear things up when there was confusion, who helped his companions choose good spells and feats, sped up the time it took to find obscure rules, set the rules aside when really fun things were happening, liked ad hoc rulings for the spontaneity they provided, and waited until after the game to keep me honest by bringing up anything he thought might be problematic later, or might have been a questionable ruling.
Good rules lawyer. GM's helper.
I had one guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to his advantage in every situation, tried to impose rules on non-rules and story situations, argued often, stopped the game at times, was completely inflexible when it came to ad hoc rulings, killed momentum and spontaneity, and re-interpeted the rules to his advantage each time it suited him without a hint of irony.
Bad rules lawyer. (Bad! Off the couch!)
I had another guy in the game who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and used it to help me clear things up when there was confusion, who helped his companions choose good spells and feats, sped up the time it took to find obscure rules, set the rules aside when really fun things were happening, liked ad hoc rulings for the spontaneity they provided, and waited until after the game to keep me honest by bringing up anything he thought might be problematic later, or might have been a questionable ruling.
Good rules lawyer. GM's helper.
This horrible tentacle monster gets it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bad rules lawyer generally does one of two things.
Only argues rules so that they work in their own favor and
Makes the assumption of perfection: that is that if they see a way "Raw says this!" then other instances of "Raw says the complete opposite!" must be wrong because
So outside of PFS, whats the argument that a druid can't take improved natural attack?
I don't want to derail this with a rules debate, and there is already an open thread on this. Basically it depends on whether or not a GM thinks you need something all of the time, or whether he thinks "Access at will" should suffice.
TLDR:The rules are silent in either direction.
Would I allow it? Most likely I would, but I tend to be rather lax when I am GM'ing.
My last comment on it in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bad rules lawyer generally does one of two things.
Only argues rules so that they work in their own favor and
Makes the assumption of perfection: that is that if they see a way "Raw says this!" then other instances of "Raw says the complete opposite!" must be wrong because
So outside of PFS, whats the argument that a druid can't take improved natural attack?
I don't want to derail this with a rules debate, and there is already an open thread on this. Basically it depends on whether or not a GM thinks you need something all of the time, or whether he thinks "Access at will" should suffice.
TLDR:The rules are silent in either direction.
Would I allow it? Most likely I would, but I tend to be rather lax when I am GM'ing.My last comment on it in this thread.
And that would spell out the difference between a good rules lawyer and a bad one.
In one case the rules lawyer has a clear cut and correct rules citation: polymorph effects to not change your type.
In the other case they have a (pretty bad) in this case argument that having access to something for a mere 48 hours a day is insufficient to allow access to it based on... nothing.
A good rules lawyer can tell the difference between a rules citation, a well founded rules interpretation, and a rules argument based on their own personal feelings which are really the DM's job, not theirs.
|
Sometimes DM's have access to information about what's going on that players don't. Sometimes this means that things the players think should work don't, and they don't know why.
This is where a bad rules lawyer will cause problems.
This is where cultivating trust in yourself as a DM will go a long way. If you are open and willing to accept criticism, and willing to hear rules questions; then one day when you say, "I understand your point, this is what happens," then people won't challenge it.
I know this to be true from personal experience on both sides of the screen.
Absolutely. I only play with people I trust and who trust me. I don't have issues with rules lawyers. I use rules people in the games I DM to assist me in fact.
Playing in organised play doesn't always provide that though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.Ah.
That would depend on the rule and ruling. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
If the rules are obviously different from the GM's ruling, or at least subject to a questionable interpretation, I'd still not shut up - and not have to worry about stopping any other player's fun, because the people I usually play with would be standing right beside me.
So, no. It's not time to move on. If a DM is being an idiot, he's being an idiot, and it's not somehow my job as a player to make that less obvious by shutting up about it when him being that idiot becomes a significant detriment to the game.
He is making a general statement, and using you as an example. In your group it may be ok to do that, but in most groups it would not be ok. He does not know your group so he was not dictating how they would respond.
And as a general statement I still don't share that opinion.
The very idea of giving one person in any social gathering the right to be a tool is something I'd not support, no matter the people.
Turning it back to being the arguing player's fault instead of the idiotic GM is something I find highly questionable.
Unless that person is you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both the DM and players are fallible creatures. They can make mistakes.
I hold on to this belief, regardless of who's seat I sit on at the actual table.
And as a general statement I still don't share that opinion.
The very idea of giving one person in any social gathering the right to be a tool is something I'd not support, no matter the people.
Turning it back to being the arguing player's fault instead of the idiotic GM is something I find highly questionable.
You are still avoiding the question directed to you, and sometimes one person being wrong can still lead to the other person being wrong if they don't handle it properly, and yes sometimes, you in a lose/lose situation. This can be one of them. You stall the game, and the players get mad, or you just accept the character's death. Neither one is good, and unlike what you are doing now, if this were to happen in an actual game, not with your current group you may not be able to avoid it.
This was never about making it the player's fault. It was about real life gaming situations.
PS: I don't care if you answer the question or not, but you seemed to have been missing the point so I am making it clear. At least now everyone can be on the same page.
There is a convention in most professional sports that the referee is always right, even when he is wrong. If you think the ball was inside the line, and the referee says it was out, and you argue with him, you are punished, even if you were right. This is an accepted convention because it is better than constant arguments.
A lot of people apply a version of this convention to RPGs.
There is a convention in most professional sports that the referee is always right, even when he is wrong. If you think the ball was inside the line, and the referee says it was out, and you argue with him, you are punished, even if you were right. This is an accepted convention because it is better than constant arguments.
A lot of people apply a version of this convention to RPGs.
I am sure the convention is not that he is right, but more that "the decision is final". Refs and umpires have been called out as being wrong after games, even by the leagues, but the decision was not reversed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you are avoiding the question. If your group was not willing to stand with you or if they thought the GM was correct would you still argue or back down, even if YOU knew that you were right?<---The question simplified.