HOW TO STOP RULES LAWYERS
Emirikol7
After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules Lawyers. The
Rules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene when they question (i.e. whine
about) a DM's action. So I'm finally trying to come up with some ideas on how
to squash these little (and big) whiners without sacrificing my fairness as a
(disgruntled) DM.
Rules for the Rules Lawyers:
Before you question any of my actions as a DM..before you even open your
mouth.. show me:
1. Show me the page and item in my rulebook (Home Rules-most recent version)
2. Show me the page and item in the PHB or DMG
3. Show me that you have written down your complaint so that we may discuss it
after the game.
House Rule: DM Fiat (BY WILL OF THE DM addition 4/7/98). The DM can change
these rules with an act of will to be more fair to the majority of the players
or to enhance the role-playing experience. If any subject comes up in the game
that inspires confusion, use the most recent book detailing it, or the DM will
rule.
***Rules are not to be taken with idiotic literacy (PC loses 500 xp for
stupidity for each infraction).***
What do other DM's out there do?
Jay Hafner B.S. (4/99 add D.C.)----------------------------
(Emir...@aol.com, JHa...@nwchiro.edu)------------------------
(Greyhawk Web Page:
http://members.aol.com/emirikol7)-----------------------------------
Ian R Malcomson
Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
DM: "So?"
--
Ian R Malcomson
Bishop187
>From: Ian R Malcomson <i...@assistap.demon.co.uk>
>
>Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
>DM: "So?"
I tried that once. The scene continued:
Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
DM: "Well..."
Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say aye!"
Players: "AYE!"
DM: "All opposed?"
(deafening silence)
At which point the other guy took over and proceeded to run a very munchkin
game:
"You kill the orc. Behind him you see a chest overflowing with gold. And a
severed hand. And the rod of seven parts. (all 7) And a plain gold ring with
fiery letters on it. ..."
while proceeding to make sure every monster attacked my character. (a fighter
named Duh Idaknow, but that's another story.)
Bishop (not your average AOheLLer)
~~Racism is being blind and thinking you can see...~~
Garry Bryan
Emirikol7 (emir...@aol.com) wrote:
: After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules Lawyers. The
: Rules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene when they question (i.e. whine
: about) a DM's action. So I'm finally trying to come up with some ideas on how
: to squash these little (and big) whiners without sacrificing my fairness as a
: (disgruntled) DM.
: Rules for the Rules Lawyers:
: Before you question any of my actions as a DM..before you even open your
: mouth.. show me:
: 1. Show me the page and item in my rulebook (Home Rules-most recent version)
: 2. Show me the page and item in the PHB or DMG
: 3. Show me that you have written down your complaint so that we may discuss it
: after the game.
: House Rule: DM Fiat (BY WILL OF THE DM addition 4/7/98). The DM can change
: these rules with an act of will to be more fair to the majority of the players
: or to enhance the role-playing experience. If any subject comes up in the game
: that inspires confusion, use the most recent book detailing it, or the DM will
: rule.
: ***Rules are not to be taken with idiotic literacy (PC loses 500 xp for
: stupidity for each infraction).***
: What do other DM's out there do?
If I am confuse as to how to handle a situation, I have often had a discussion
about what seemed fair to all involved, ie, type of roll, magicall effect,
limitations. etc. If someone else thought it un fair and "against the rules"
I point out, "It's MY world and welcome to it". . .
Garry
Mike Wilson, UCE Account
Garry Bryan <ga...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
> If I am confuse as to how to handle a situation, I have often had a discussion
> about what seemed fair to all involved, ie, type of roll, magicall effect,
> limitations. etc. If someone else thought it un fair and "against the rules"
> I point out, "It's MY world and welcome to it". . .
That is also how I attempt to handle it... but also there is always the
final method of not inviting them again... which sadly I've done before.
--
---
Mike Wilson http://www.drwho.org
http://www.pobox.com/~mwilson
Seth Tupper
On 9 Apr 1998, Emirikol7 wrote:
> After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules Lawyers. The
> Rules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene when they question (i.e. whine
> about) a DM's action. So I'm finally trying to come up with some ideas on how
> to squash these little (and big) whiners without sacrificing my fairness as a
> (disgruntled) DM.
>
> Rules for the Rules Lawyers:
> Before you question any of my actions as a DM..before you even open your
> mouth.. show me:
> 1. Show me the page and item in my rulebook (Home Rules-most recent version)
> 2. Show me the page and item in the PHB or DMG
> 3. Show me that you have written down your complaint so that we may discuss it
> after the game.
> House Rule: DM Fiat (BY WILL OF THE DM addition 4/7/98). The DM can change
> these rules with an act of will to be more fair to the majority of the players
> or to enhance the role-playing experience. If any subject comes up in the game
> that inspires confusion, use the most recent book detailing it, or the DM will
> rule.
>
> ***Rules are not to be taken with idiotic literacy (PC loses 500 xp for
> stupidity for each infraction).***
>
> What do other DM's out there do?
I like to ask the Rules Lawyer how he has managed to divine every factor
involved in the situation.
Example:
RL: "Hey, that spell has a casting time of 1 round! He (The
bad guy mage.) just started casting 8 segments ago!"
ME: "Oh yeah? Are you talking about the mage in front of
you or the one behind the tapestry in the corner?""
Dan Bongard
On 9 Apr 1998, Emirikol7 wrote:
> After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules Lawyers.
> The Rules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene when they question
> (i.e. whine about) a DM's action. So I'm finally trying to come up
> with some ideas on how to squash these little (and big) whiners
> without sacrificing my fairness as a (disgruntled) DM.
As long as the players understand which rules you ARE using, you
can ignore complaints about what the printed rules say. If you have
decided to change the rules without telling anybody, however, you
should probably expect complaints.
-- Dan
Forumite
It is also important to have some perspective. Not all
player-correcting-the-GM is rules lawyering.
An example: By GM fiat and generosity, my paladin can turn undead starting at
1st level, albeit still much weaker than the priest.
I drank a potion of heroism, making me effectively 4th level. Again through GM
generosity if not "official rules" he allowed me to turn undead as a 4th level
Paladin. I made my turn roll. Since he thought paladins turn as priests 3
levels lower, he ruled the turning didn't work. I believed the rule was a
paladin turns as a priest 2 levels lower hence my turning would work. I looked
up the turning rules, found I was correct. The GM allowed my turning to work.
Now, what also must be known is that players don't generally question
everything the GM says. In fact, in later instances where I thought I hit my
opponent the GM said I missed. I was surprised but didn't argue the point. (I
hit AC 8 and missed while another player hit AC:8 and did damage.) I figured
something was up. I finally did learn that my weapon was an uncursed sword
-1, hence why I suddenly became a poor combatant.
Anyway, the point is that sometimes GMs do make mistakes. The game belongs to
the players as well as the GM. If the GM jerks the players around by changing
the rules at his leisure, then he is not a good GM, in my opinion. The GM
always has the final say since there must be an ultimate ruling for the game to
continue, but a players can still question when soemthing doesn't add up. Most
of the time it's because there's a factor the players don't know about (like my
sword -1). However, once in awhile it's a true honest mistake (Paladin
turning) and the GM does not lose auhority if he corrects his error. To me, it
gives the GM more respect and trust for the times when the GM does say it's
such and such a way and that's final.
Gerald KaTz
High stats != bad roleplaying
johannes
Obviously retraining is in order. Pick up a copy of Paranoia, and run it
once a month or as required. Believe me, they'll never complain about the
rules again!
John
SinisteR
>
>Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
>DM: "So?"
I've done that.
KengiF
> After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules
> Lawyers.TheRules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene
> when they question (i.e. whine about) a DM's action. So I'm
> finally trying to come up with some ideas on how
> to squash these little (and big) whiners without sacrificing my
> fairness as a(disgruntled) DM.
Been there, done that. Both sides.
>Rules for the Rules Lawyers:
>Before you question any of my actions as a DM..before you even
> open your mouth.. show me:
Won't work. It may supress it a bit, but all it will do is make sure that they
know the rules *better*.
To deal with the Rules Lawyer you have to get at the heart of the matter.
Control. They want/need control. Give it to them ... just not the way they
wanted.
Make actual role playing important. Don't say "He takes out his Sword +3" or
'She attacks". Be a bit more descriptive, and don't give anything away. "He
casts a fireball" becomes "He gestures wildly, and a small flame shoots out of
his finger toward your group. As it hits the ground, a sudden explosion of fire
engulfs you." Was it a Fireball, or a well thought Cantrip that is setting off
that Hidden (invisible?) Greek Fire? Or was it all just a clever illusion?
Perhaps just some slight of hand? The PC's may never know ...
There are legitimate times, as another pointed out, to ask questions. Use this
to your Role Playing advantage. To use the previous case:
"What do you mean I didn't hit? I would have hit the same AC the others did and
they hit?"
<Evil grin>
"Yes, I know."
then look puzzled (it's important for effect ;)
" I wonder why that is?..."
You would be surprised at just how many Rules Lawyers are just aching for a
puzzle to solve ... and there's a certain amount of satisfaction in figuring
out that the sword was cursed ... (or whatever ...)
In short, forget damage and dice as much as possible and they will come around
...
John Price
"Don't let the address fool you"
Dan Bongard
Ian R Malcomson (i...@assistap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: DM: "So?"
Well, the obvious response is "So are we using the PHB or not?" As
a player, I would appreciate knowing what the rules of the game are.
DM fiat is fine, but only if attention is paid to consistency and
care is taken to make sure the players know the rules.
-- Dan
Threshold RPG
In article <199804091555...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, emir...@aol.com (Emirikol7) wrote:
>***Rules are not to be taken with idiotic literacy (PC loses 500 xp for
>stupidity for each infraction).***
>
>What do other DM's out there do?
Best way to deal with Rules Lawyers:
Nuke them all from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Astonishing Yazoo
On 09 Apr 1998 15:55:46 GMT, emir...@aol.com (Emirikol7) spake
thusly:
<SNIP>
>What do other DM's out there do?
I am lucky, I have actually never played with any rules lawyer... But
better safe than sorry. I have a house rule, "If there is any
question about the DMs decision or interpretation of the rules,
consult him privately AFTER the game. Do not question the DM's
thinking during the game."
There is also a rule that says, "The DM reserves the right to alter
any rule, etc, as he sees fit."
-Dave
>Jay Hafner B.S. (4/99 add D.C.)----------------------------
>(Emir...@aol.com, JHa...@nwchiro.edu)------------------------
>(Greyhawk Web Page:
>http://members.aol.com/emirikol7)-----------------------------------
===============================================================
Please note- I will NEVER do business with any company or
person who sends me unsolicited spam. Just so ya know.
"The difference between man and animals, besides the ability
to invent bubble gum, is a sense of humour."
Compliments of the Astonishing Yazoo
e-mail me at ddrysdale@BEGONE SPAMdpts.schdist57.bc.ca
Graey
The Astonishing Yazoo (wc...@NOSPAMgeocities.com) posted:
>
>On 09 Apr 1998 15:55:46 GMT, emir...@aol.com (Emirikol7) spake
>thusly:
>
>
><SNIP>
>
>>What do other DM's out there do?
>
>I am lucky, I have actually never played with any rules lawyer... But
>better safe than sorry. I have a house rule, "If there is any
>question about the DMs decision or interpretation of the rules,
>consult him privately AFTER the game. Do not question the DM's
>thinking during the game."
>
>There is also a rule that says, "The DM reserves the right to alter
>any rule, etc, as he sees fit."
>
If my players have a comment/problem/question/etc about something I did, I
let them have a short say, then I'll either tell them to talk to me more
after the game or I'll realize I'm wrong (ha!) and correct the error. I
don't just tell them to shut up, but I don't let them waste time arguing
either.
- Graey
-----------------------------
| sla...@mediacity.com |
| www.mediacity.com/~slayer |
-----------------------------
Uncle Figgy
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
> As long as the players understand which rules you ARE using, you
> can ignore complaints about what the printed rules say. If you have
> decided to change the rules without telling anybody, however, you
> should probably expect complaints.
Here here! I agree 150%. I've not been GMing for twenty years, but I
have been running games for quite awhile, and in my time I've *never*
had a problem with Rules Lawyers. My secrets?
1. Run NOTHING that is trite, cliched, pre-published, unimaginative or
boring. These things lead to player's who either have read the
adventure in question or can predict what is going to happen.
2. Let the players know before we even sit down to make characters what
rules are being used and what rules aren't. That way there's no
argument later.
3. Let the players know at the very first game that I play in a world
where the monsters might *seem* similar to the ones in any book they
might have read, but that doesn't necessarily make them the same.
There are still more, but they should be common-sense to any good GM.
Things like fairness and honesty. I've compiled a free book about my
experience as a GM. Check it out at the address in my sig.
Uncle Figgy
----------------------------------------------
Read Uncle Figgy's Guide to Good GameMastering
It's FREE!
http://members.aol.com/essuncius/cover.html
Benjamin
emir...@aol.com (Emirikol7) wrote:
<snip solution>
>What do other DM's out there do?
After only 16 years of DMing, I've come up with a very plausable rule.
First, I have enough house rules to keep rules lawyers at bay.
However, when they errupt, I ask them to show me. If they have a real
valid point (rare) then I let them explain themselves. Then I take a
moment or five and (using a mental machine gun) shootdown their
arguement.
This is when they start gesteculating wildly and making an ass of
themselves. They piss off the players and alienate themselves.
(I'm a big rules lawyer but on the DM side) Then I explain how the DM
rules. If he doesn't like it he can leave.
I had this happen once where the player went to join a game in
progress not too far away. Within a week he was asking permission to
rejoin (good games are hard to find).
Evangelos Pantelis
I've found that the best way to stop rules lawyers is to give them a
bitch slap. This usualy shuts them up real fast.
Seriously though, when its on my home court, the rules are whatever
I say they are. I have no problem with making them up. As Dm you need to
firmly establish your authority over the rules. I'm no control freak or
anything, its just a lot easier to keep a game together when players
aren't spending half the time questioning your decisions. It is important
to keep an open mind however, you can't be fair to your players if you
disallow every rule they bring to your attention. The only time rules
lawyers should even be given any say is during tournaments and other
events where some sort of standardization is necessary. Here it is usually
best to stick only to the main rulebooks and state ahead of time any extra
rule books which will be allowed. Of course, I am a law student so perhaps
I am not the one you should be listening to on this matter.
Pathfinder
"when you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there"
Dougmander
Emirikol7 wrote:
> After 20 years of DMing, I've grown quite tired of Rules Lawyers. The
> Rules Lawyer (RL) can ruin an entire scene when they question (i.e. whine
> about) a DM's action. So I'm finally trying to come up with some ideas on how
> to squash these little (and big) whiners without sacrificing my fairness as a
> (disgruntled) DM.
>
> Rules for the Rules Lawyers:
> Before you question any of my actions as a DM..before you even open your
> mouth.. show me:
> 1. Show me the page and item in my rulebook (Home Rules-most recent version)
> 2. Show me the page and item in the PHB or DMG
> 3. Show me that you have written down your complaint so that we may discuss it
> after the game.
> House Rule: DM Fiat (BY WILL OF THE DM addition 4/7/98). The DM can change
> these rules with an act of will to be more fair to the majority of the players
> or to enhance the role-playing experience. If any subject comes up in the game
> that inspires confusion, use the most recent book detailing it, or the DM will
> rule.
>
> ***Rules are not to be taken with idiotic literacy [sic] (PC loses 500 xp for
> stupidity for each infraction).***
>
> What do other DM's out there do?
>
I think your "show me the page" rule is a bad idea, because it only encourages
more slavish adherence to the written rules, which ultimately undermines the DM's
authority and brings the game to a halt every five minutes, as everybody pores
through the PHB to look up some obscure rule. It also undermines your assertion
that rules are not to be taken literally.
I have no advice to offer you, because I simply don't play with rules lawyers.
Life's too short to waste on people like that. If an unhappy player wants
everything their way, they can go spend hours designing a dungeon and then run
their own campaign, where they call all the shots. But when I'm DMing, my players
just have to trust that every decision I make is in the interest of the game as a
whole, not the narrow motives of a particular character at a particular moment.
The DM is the only player who can see the big picture, and therefore has authority
over his players to interpret the rules to his own satisfaction.
So give fair warning, and then just kick any repeat offenders out of your
campaign. That's it.
Doug
Emirikol7
>Nuke them all from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
Heh, heh, heh. A lover of the dark..a fellow to the Music of the Spears...
Emirikol7
<<However, when they errupt, I ask them to show me. If they have a real valid
point (rare) then I let them explain themselves. Then I take a moment or five
and (using a mental machine gun) shootdown their arguement.
>>
You're obviously a player who has experienced what I'm speaking of...
Shaun Sides
Original message by: Benjamin <dau...@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:31:11 GMT
Subject: Re: HOW TO STOP RULES LAWYERS
> However, when they errupt, I ask them to show me. If they have a real
> valid point (rare) then I let them explain themselves. Then I take a
> moment or five and (using a mental machine gun) shootdown their
> arguement.
I've never been able to completely catalog all the idiosyncracies
that exist with the way I play AD&D, though I've tried mightily
to do it. So, my system for dealing with the RLs has been to
always be willing to spend a short time listening to the
grievance. After that I make a decision. I don't believe in
addressing the issue again, and especially not during game time.
--
Shaun L. Sides ar...@abts.net
Business web site http://www.abts.net/~arch
Showershoe web site http://www.abts.net/~arch/showershoe
Recreational web site http://sara.mmlc.nwu.edu/~arch
Quokkagirl
All I have to say is, "do any of you live near Ventura County, ca?", because
you are exactly the kind of guys (gals?) we are looking to game with. The
younger players live by the book, and finding "mature" players is hard- they
have gone into the wilderness called marriage +/or parenthood and are never
heard from again- speak out you lost souls, we are here looking for you!
Anyway, a good game is a fair game, but not necessarily a game by the book
Shaun Sides
Original message by: Quokkagirl <quokk...@aol.com>
Date: 11 Apr 1998 02:16:38 GMT
Subject: Re: HOW TO STOP RULES LAWYERS
Heh. About 3000 miles away. Not too bad of a commute, if the
game's good. ;-)
D. Casey
I checked out Uncle Figgy's web site and after reading the first few pages
decided to bookmark it. Not too bad...
As for this tiring subject, I would like to post my house rules and see what
people think of them. Your comments are welcomed!
-------BEGIN-------
I want to stress up front, that this is a serious campaign, designed for
serious players. Player cooperation, working as a group, and following the
house rules will help ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the
game.
Now, as you already know and understand, as the DM, I have the final say in
all areas of the game. This is not to say that I am egotistical or an
over-dominating DM. All of my decisions must be made with the campaign, the
module, and the current game situation in mind. I know the future of the
game and the module and make all of my decisions based on them and the
balance of the game. When situations arise that are unexpected or a player
has a valid point or question, I will listen and judge fairly.
The following are house rules which I expect to be followed at all times:
- DM and Player Respect: If I am reading out loud to the group or a member
of the group - SIT STILL AND BE QUIET. By doing so, you show respect for
the DM, the player, and interest in what’s going on in the game. If you can
’t do these things, then don’t play.
- Character Knowledge and Player Organization: If you don’t know your
character, or what it can do, and you have to search through multiple books,
charts, and sheets just to answer a simple question, you slow the game down.
If I ask a simple character question, you should either know it, or be able
to quickly reference it on your character sheet. If you don’t like this,
don’t play.
- Cluttered Table and Piles of Dice: I collect loose dice, and piles of
books for permanent, personal use. If you want to keep yours, keep your
books off the table when not being referenced, and have only one set of
dice, per person, on the table. Multiple sets of dice is one of the most
distracting and useless things you can have at the game. Just bring your
favorite “set” of dice and your players handbook. If you don’t like this,
don’t play.
- Intentionally Deceiving the DM: The DM is not stupid. If you don’t like
this, don’t play.
- Excessive “I remember once where....” Stories: The majority of us have
played for several years and we all have our favorite memories from past
games. Please keep these stories out of the gaming session. Before, after,
or during breaks is a good time to relive those famous times. If you don’t
like this, don’t play.
- Player Arguments: While I encourage meaningful discussions, arguing does
nothing but attract wandering monsters or the local militia. Fines range
from several gold to life!! I will not tolerate players who argue
continuously!! If you don’t like this, don’t play.
- Roll Playing vs. Role Playing: I much prefer players to use their
imaginations while playing rather then the dice or the rule books. I have
the nasty tendency to award Role Players allot more experience, and am more
lenient with them and their ideas, then with the Roll Players. If you don’t
like this, don’t play.
Well, that’s all of them. I do reserve the right to add, delete, or modify
any of the above, as the situation dictates, during the gaming session. To
some people, the above rules will turn them off to playing in the game.
That’s fine, and I will not hold it against them for not wanting to play.
However, it is my hopes that everyone will give the game a chance. I
suspect that most people will find the rules helpful in playing as well as
having a great gaming session.
Enough already!!!! Lets get on with the campaign.........
-------END-------
________
D. Casey
Email: pala...@dial.pipex.com
Web: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/paladium
Scott Stilling
D. Casey wrote:
"-Roll Playing vs. Role Playing: I much prefer players to use their
imaginations while playing rather then the dice or the rule books. I
have the nasty tendency to award Role Players allot more experience, and
am more lenient with them and their ideas, then with the Roll Players.
If you don’t like this, don’t play."
It's not nasty, it's fair. I have DM'd for the same group for a number
of years and been accused of playing favoite (which really pisses me
off!). the bottom line is I have one very incredible role player and 3
other so-so "roll" players. It would be unfair if I didn't reward the
best players with the best treasure.
Scott
Wayne J. Rasmussen
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
Can you as a player know all the information that is hidden behind the
GM's screen? If not, how do you know that the rule hasn't been followed?
Perhaps there is a reason in that hidden information that causes
something different. (Then again, some players are gods gift to
role-playing so the problem must be anywhere but with themselves)
Tell me, Do you want the GM to blurt out "Oh, yes that rule is fine,
buy, the evil cleric is wearing the amulet of dennies which protects him
from that effect". If that is what you want then fine and dandy. if
not, then what do you want him to do? Either he hints at it in some way
or he doesn't. And maybe that is what some players want or need to
handle the game. If you are getting told everything, why play the
game?
This is why I think that such players are boorish or just bad role
players.
Lawrence R. Mead
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Ian R Malcomson (i...@assistap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: : Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: : DM: "So?"
:
: Well, the obvious response is "So are we using the PHB or not?" As
: a player, I would appreciate knowing what the rules of the game are.
:
: DM fiat is fine, but only if attention is paid to consistency and
: care is taken to make sure the players know the rules.
: -- Dan
Exactimundo, Dan. I too would like to know that most of the PHB rules I
am used to are followed unless told ahead of time. It is hard enough to
keep alive and role play without having to guess at the rules.
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Dan Bongard
Wayne J. Rasmussen (w...@netcom.com) wrote:
::: Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
::: DM: "So?"
:: Well, the obvious response is "So are we using the PHB or not?" As
:: a player, I would appreciate knowing what the rules of the game are.
:: DM fiat is fine, but only if attention is paid to consistency and
:: care is taken to make sure the players know the rules.
: Can you as a player know all the information that is hidden behind the
: GM's screen? If not, how do you know that the rule hasn't been followed?
Sometimes it is obvious. Even when it is not obvious, it is nice to know
that there is SOME reasoning behind GM fiat. For instance, if you go
to cast "Cure Light Wounds" and the DM says it only heals 1d4 instead
of 1d8, and says "So?" when you point out that the spell heals 1d8 according
to the book, there are three possibilities:
(1): The DM meant to follow the rules as written, but forgot the correct
die type and isn't willing to show weakness in front of the PCs.
(2): The DM decided to change the rules, didn't tell anybody, and isn't
interested in being tacful or considerate about it.
(3): There are special conditions at work here that cause the spell to
temporarily be at less-than-full effectiveness.
If (3) is the answer, an intelligent DM can avoid debate simply by saying
something like "For some reason, the spell doesn't seem fully effective"
or "there must be something at work here that you don't know about".
Saying "So?" simply makes (1) and (2) seem more likely, since (1), (2)
and "So?" are hallmarks of bad DMs.
A lot of the more arrogant people on this newsgroup like to pretend they
are some kind of UberGamers -- like they never fuck up and forget anything
while running a game. One of the reasons players quote rules the the DM
is that, sometimes, the DM forgets the rules. The players tend to have
a good grasp of what their characters can and cannot do within the rules;
the DM, who has to keep track of dozens or hundreds of characters, does not
have as good a grasp of a given PC. Thus it is quite reasonable for the
player to be concerned that the DM might be forgetting one of the rules
relating to his PC.
: Perhaps there is a reason in that hidden information that causes
: something different.
So how is "So?" a good answer? If I point out a rule to somebody and
they say "So?", that tells me one thing: they don't care about the rules.
It doesn't tell me "That rules doesn't apply here". If you want to
tell somebody "that rule doesn't apply here", say "that rule doesn't
apply here". If you want to tell them "You don't know why that rule
doesn't apply here", say "You don't know why that rule doesn't apply
here." You should only tell them "So?" if you want them to think "I don't
care what you think."
: (Then again, some players are gods gift to role-playing so the problem
: must be anywhere but with themselves)
See? This is just the sort of DM-afflicting God Complex I was talking
about earlier. A player needs to keep track of far fewer rules and
variables than a DM. This means that if there is a fuck-up, it is more
likely to be the DM who made it. This is particularly likely to be true if
the DM in question is the kind who says "So?" in response to questions
about possible mistakes on his part -- experienced DMs don't need to
get so defensive.
: Tell me, Do you want the GM to blurt out "Oh, yes that rule is fine,
: buy, the evil cleric is wearing the amulet of dennies which protects him
: from that effect".
Is there something wrong with saying "That rule doesn't apply in this
situation?" How about "Your spell has no effect, for reasons your character
doesn't know?" Both of those responses leave NO DOUBT that you, the DM,
are aware of the rules but are also aware of extenuating circumstances.
Saying "So?" just says "Oh, yes, that's what the rule says, but since I
don't give a fuck what the rules say or what you think, you might as well
sit down and shut up."
: If that is what you want then fine and dandy. if
: not, then what do you want him to do?
I made a number of suggestions above -- basic, simple solutions requiring
a minimum of intelligence or experience, but all superior to "So?".
: Either he hints at it in some way or he doesn't.
If special conditions apply, the character would almost always be in
a position to notice that something wasn't quite right. Even if that is
not the case, a little politeness on the DM's part never hurt anybody.
: If you are getting told everything, why play the game?
There are many ways to no tell somebody something. For instance, if a
player asks you, "Where did the crossbow bolt come from? I look around,
do I see anything?", you COULD say "Sit down, shut up, and stop
questioning what I tell you." Or you could say "You don't see anybody
around you. You look around, but there's nobody in sight." Neither
response gives away the fact that there is an invisible assassin in
the area, but the second option is a lot more polite.
: This is why I think that such players are boorish or just bad role
: players.
I hadn't noticed that particular problem was any rarer among DMs. In fact I
know a hell of a lot more good roleplayers than I know good DMs. Dming is
a skill that most people simply aren't good at; it is a complicated,
dynamic task with plenty of room for mistakes.
-- Dan
David Trimboli
Scott Stilling wrote in message <352F33...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
>It would be unfair if I didn't reward the
>best players with the best treasure.
You know that thread about giving experience bonuses to players with low
prime requisites? How about giving the best treasure to the *worst* players
on the same principle?
The above is a joke, so don't bother to argue back. In fact, I entirely
dislike the give-XP-bonuses-to-weak-characters idea.
David
Stardate 98277.4
David Trimboli
Quokkagirl wrote in message
<199804110216...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Anyway, a good game is a fair game, but not necessarily a game by the book
And conversely, a game by the book may be a good game, and a DM-altered game
is not necessarily superior. I prefer by-the-book games, not because I'm
dogmatic, but because I usually dislike a house rule more than I dislike an
official rule. The official rules work pretty well, as evidenced by their
popularity, and everybody has their own preferences. One player saying "I
don't like this" doesn't make a change necessary.
David
Stardate 98277.5
Wayne J. Rasmussen
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
I understand that, but, a average or above intelligence player should be
able to understand that without jumping to the conclusion that the GM is
changing the rules.
: A lot of the more arrogant people on this newsgroup like to pretend they
: are some kind of UberGamers -- like they never fuck up and forget anything
: while running a game. One of the reasons players quote rules the the DM
: is that, sometimes, the DM forgets the rules.
True this can happen. But why assume it is the GM making a mistake and
not something special? Now if the GM has a history of making mistakes...
: The players tend to have a good grasp of what their characters can and
: cannot do within the rules
True. There have been many times when I have seen players assuming
things without justification.
: the DM, who has to keep track of dozens or hundreds of characters, does not
: have as good a grasp of a given PC. Thus it is quite reasonable for the
: player to be concerned that the DM might be forgetting one of the rules
: relating to his PC.
Certainly this can happen.
: : Perhaps there is a reason in that hidden information that causes
: : something different.
: So how is "So?" a good answer? If I point out a rule to somebody and
: they say "So?", that tells me one thing: they don't care about the rules.
: It doesn't tell me "That rules doesn't apply here". If you want to
: tell somebody "that rule doesn't apply here", say "that rule doesn't
: apply here". If you want to tell them "You don't know why that rule
: doesn't apply here", say "You don't know why that rule doesn't apply
: here." You should only tell them "So?" if you want them to think "I don't
: care what you think."
Now perhaps you are not havent' read the above articles, but, you bitch to
me about the "So?" when it is blatently someone elses. I will paste it
back in for you.
: :: Ian R Malcomson (i...@assistap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: ::: Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: ::: DM: "So?"
You may have missed my point. When the player disrupts the game with his
question about such and such rule the GM needs to respond. Now do you
want that response to give you, the player, a hint as to what is going
on? Because it is easy to the GM to give that hint and perhaps give the
: : (Then again, some players are gods gift to role-playing so the problem
: : must be anywhere but with themselves)
: See? This is just the sort of DM-afflicting God Complex I was talking
: about earlier.
What. That some player have an over inflated self importance? That isn't
the GMs fault.
: A player needs to keep track of far fewer rules and variables than a DM.
: This means that if there is a fuck-up, it is more likely to be the DM
: who made it.
Perhaps, but, does the player have access to ALL THE INFORMATION to make
a judgement in this situation?
: This is particularly likely to be true if
: the DM in question is the kind who says "So?" in response to questions
: about possible mistakes on his part -- experienced DMs don't need to
: get so defensive.
Perhaps the GM is being vague and not wanting to give out a hint.
: : Tell me, Do you want the GM to blurt out "Oh, yes that rule is fine,
: : buy, the evil cleric is wearing the amulet of dennies which protects him
: : from that effect".
: Is there something wrong with saying "That rule doesn't apply in this
: situation?"
Yes. You have now given the player a hint that the rule doesn't apply in
this situation.
: How about "Your spell has no effect, for reasons your character
: doesn't know?"
You have still given the player a hint. Although, a desription of the
spell effect/result should have shown "Your spell has no effect" prior to
the "rules arguement".
: Both of those responses leave NO DOUBT that you, the DM,
: are aware of the rules but are also aware of extenuating circumstances.
Both have given the player a hint. Now this player should have put 2 + 2
together and then decide whether it is worth the effort to pursue this
mystery.
: Saying "So?" just says "Oh, yes, that's what the rule says, but since I
: don't give a fuck what the rules say or what you think, you might as well
: sit down and shut up."
That is the only way you can imagine that statement? Will it always lead
to that conclusion? "So?" could be a prompt for more information from the
player.
: : If that is what you want then fine and dandy. if
: : not, then what do you want him to do?
: I made a number of suggestions above -- basic, simple solutions requiring
: a minimum of intelligence or experience, but all superior to "So?".
In your opinion. I think "So?" could be a good answer in the right
situation.
: : Either he hints at it in some way or he doesn't.
: If special conditions apply, the character would almost always be in
: a position to notice that something wasn't quite right.
Ah. So you admit that it could be something other than a rules mistake on
the GMs part
: Even if that is not the case, a little politeness on the DM's part
: never hurt anybody.
And you consider it polite for the player to disrupt the game with his
rules opinion?
wayne
Scott Stilling
Nick Ashley wrote:
>
> > >Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
> > >DM: "So?"
> >
> > Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
> > DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
> > Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
> > DM: "Well..."
> > Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say aye!"
> > Players: "AYE!"
> ME: Ok go ahead and buy a shitload of books and spen hours of your own time
> creating dungeons and towns. just don't ask me for any help, DM proceeds to
> leave with all campaign material.
Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
Nick Ashley
Benjamin
emir...@aol.com (Emirikol7) wrote:
[snip]
>You're obviously a player who has experienced what I'm speaking of...
[snip]
Ah, well. I'm a DM. While I play, I generally don't think of myself as
a player per se. Anyway, I've been DMing since 1982, so I've had more
than one lawyer extrordinaire. Sometimes they're good to have as pets.
. .
Uncle Figgy
In article <dbongard...@netcom.com>
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
> : Can you as a player know all the information that is hidden behind the
> : GM's screen? If not, how do you know that the rule hasn't been followed?
>
> Sometimes it is obvious. Even when it is not obvious, it is nice to know
> that there is SOME reasoning behind GM fiat. For instance, if you go
> to cast "Cure Light Wounds" and the DM says it only heals 1d4 instead
> of 1d8, and says "So?" when you point out that the spell heals 1d8 according
> to the book, there are three possibilities:
>
> (1): The DM meant to follow the rules as written, but forgot the correct
> die type and isn't willing to show weakness in front of the PCs.
> (2): The DM decided to change the rules, didn't tell anybody, and isn't
> interested in being tacful or considerate about it.
> (3): There are special conditions at work here that cause the spell to
> temporarily be at less-than-full effectiveness.
>
>
> If (3) is the answer, an intelligent DM can avoid debate simply by saying
> something like "For some reason, the spell doesn't seem fully effective"
> or "there must be something at work here that you don't know about".
> Saying "So?" simply makes (1) and (2) seem more likely, since (1), (2)
> and "So?" are hallmarks of bad DMs.
I have to agree here. The GM is supposed to be entertaining above all
other things. Using simple terms like, "the arrow hits you, take 5d8
points of damage" can only cheese a player off. Like Dan says, if
there is an extinuating circumstance involved in anything, the PC is
most likely in a position to notice.
It's much more dramatic (and much better roleplaying on the GMs part)
to say something like, "the warrior pointing his bow at you pulls back
and lets go. Instead of the normal 'twang' of a normal bowstring, this
one seems almost to thunder through the air. Maybe it's just the
light, but it almost looks like the arrow blurs as it flies toward
you!"
This has much more drama, lets the player know that something is up and
has a great "oh crap!" factor that will have the player sweating while
he waits to see if your dice roll is a hit or miss. As an added
effect, it also gets the players more than willing to kack the warrior
with the obviously magical bow. And if the bow gets broken during the
battle...*evilgrin*
Lawrence R. Mead
Uncle Figgy (dwcope{spaminated}@aol{formyprotection}.com) wrote:
: In article <dbongard...@netcom.com>
While I agree with you to a point, *no one* adds this kind of flavor over
a battle lasting a full hour where more than 30 arrows may be fired at
a single target. It is just too much. The fifth or sixth time a figure
is targetted (not necessarily hit) you are going to run out of colorful
description when "the arrow hits, take d6 points" is quite enough.
Whenever possible, the DM should be descriptive and not merely quantitative;
but there is only so much the DM can do.
Uncle Figgy
In article <6gt6ri$87i$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>
lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead) writes:
> While I agree with you to a point, *no one* adds this kind of flavor over
> a battle lasting a full hour where more than 30 arrows may be fired at
> a single target. It is just too much. The fifth or sixth time a figure
> is targetted (not necessarily hit) you are going to run out of colorful
> description when "the arrow hits, take d6 points" is quite enough.
> Whenever possible, the DM should be descriptive and not merely quantitative;
> but there is only so much the DM can do.
>
> DMGorgon
Such things go without saying. The average player is smart enough to
realize that if the bow is described as magical the first time it is
used, chances are good that it's going to be magical through the entire
full hour battle. By the second time a figure is targetted (much less
the fifth or sixth) the GM is perfectly within rights to fall back on
"Bam! You're nailed! Take X points damage!"
If the player didn't get it the first time that the bow was magical,
that's his tough luck. He should have been paying better attention.
My point was that the character who was getting pierced by that magical
bow should definitely have been allowed to notice what it was he was
getting pierced by. He wouldn't know the actual enchantments involved.
He wouldn't know whether it was a permanent ensorcellment on the
weapon or just an enhancing-type spell that only lasts for twenty
rounds or what-have-you. But by giving him the flavor (even for that
first time if at no later point) the GM has forestalled any cries of
"but arrows only do 1d6!!!" and at the same time added drama to the
game.
Nick Ashley
Scott Stilling <SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<35319F...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
> get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
> whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
> that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
> recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
> right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
>
hehe I am glad that someone agrees with me. In my town everyone thinks that
they are a DM but only two, "me and a good friend of mine" really know what
is involved in good DMing.
Dan Bongard
Nick Ashley (jack...@teleport.com) wrote:
: > >Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: > >DM: "So?"
: >
: > I tried that once. The scene continued:
: > Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
: > DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
: > Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
: > DM: "Well..."
: > Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say aye!"
: > Players: "AYE!"
: ME: Ok go ahead and buy a shitload of books and spen hours of your own
: time creating dungeons and towns. just don't ask me for any help, DM
: proceeds to leave with all campaign material.
Doesn't sound like much of a loss.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Scott Stilling (SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Nick Ashley wrote:
: >
: > > >Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: > > >DM: "So?"
: > >
: > > I tried that once. The scene continued:
: > > Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
: > > DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
: > > Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
: > > DM: "Well..."
: > > Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say aye!"
: > > Players: "AYE!"
: > ME: Ok go ahead and buy a shitload of books and spen hours of your own time
: > creating dungeons and towns. just don't ask me for any help, DM proceeds to
: > leave with all campaign material.
: Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM.
I hear that a lot in this newsgroup, and frankly I don't have any
sympathy for that attitude. I _do_ understand the work involved in
being a DM; I DM more than any of the people I play with. Yeah, it
is work, but it is also very enjoyable -- you get to tell stories
to the players, and get to be personally responsible for other people
having a fun time.
What amazes me is how some DMs adopt this martyr-like attitude -- as
if they were personally doing the world a favor by nobly sacrificing
themselves for The Good of the Game. Come on, guys, get over yourselves;
you're not Christ on the cross. The players are there to have fun. If
they aren't having fun, you're not doing your job. So you sweated,
so you sacrificed, so you spent 981236712 hours preparing the
adventure -- so what? You expect the players to fall down on their
hands and knees and suck you off out of gratitude just because you've
wasted half your life on the campaign? A campaign run by a DM who
adopts a hostile, adversarial relationship with his players is quite
likely to be inferior to one run by a freidnly DM who is concerned with
what the players enjoy, even if the former DM "nobly sacrificed"
weeks of time in preparation and the latter DM slapped together an
adventure in five minutes while eating his Wheaties.
A DM's job is not to sweat, work, and exhaust himself, so don't expect
gratitude for doing it. The work and time are often necessary, but
they are not what the players are interested in. The players are interested
in the end result -- fun.
: Don't get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
: whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
: that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
: recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
: right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
I see players do stuff like that all the time. If you aren't playing
with munchkins and powergamers it is relatively common. By that I
don't mean "you must be playing with a bunch of losers"; I mean simply
that cheating to give your character a benefit isn't something many
players feel a pressing need to do.
-- Dan
Forumite
>> Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
>> get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
>> whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
>> that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
>> recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
>> right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
>>
>
>
I told my GM I'm leaving 200gp "safe at home" while out adventuring. Next
gaimng session, I llok at my character sheet. Sure enough, 200gp is listes as
being at home. However, for gold pieces on hand, I see 200gp as well.
thinking the GM made a mistake I informed him of this. He said he checked
everything over and everything is as it should be. Maybe I did forget about
an extra 200gp somewhere, but I still can't recall from where.
No biggie in the grand scheme of things in the campaign.
Gerald Katz
High stats != bad roleplaying
Dan Bongard
Nick Ashley (jack...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Scott Stilling <SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
: <35319F...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
: > Nick Ashley wrote:
: > >
: > > > >Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
: > > > >DM: "So?"
: > > >
: > > > I tried that once. The scene continued:
: > > > Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
: > > > DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
: > > > Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
: > > > DM: "Well..."
: > > > Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say
: aye!"
: > > > Players: "AYE!"
: > > ME: Ok go ahead and buy a shitload of books and spen hours of your own
: time
: > > creating dungeons and towns. just don't ask me for any help, DM
: proceeds to
: > > leave with all campaign material.
: >
: > Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
: > get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
: > whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
: > that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
: > recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
: > right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
: >
: hehe I am glad that someone agrees with me. In my town everyone thinks that
: they are a DM but only two, "me and a good friend of mine" really know what
: is involved in good DMing.
Apparently you don't, if you think "I'm leaving and taking my toys
with me" is an appropriate response to DM-player disputes. :)
-- Dan
Evangelos Pantelis
I still say go with the tried and true bitch slap.
Dan Bongard
::::: Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
::::: DM: "So?"
:: Sometimes it is obvious. Even when it is not obvious, it is nice to know
:: that there is SOME reasoning behind GM fiat. For instance, if you go
:: to cast "Cure Light Wounds" and the DM says it only heals 1d4 instead
:: of 1d8, and says "So?" when you point out that the spell heals 1d8 according
:: to the book, there are three possibilities:
:: (1): The DM meant to follow the rules as written, but forgot the correct
:: die type and isn't willing to show weakness in front of the PCs.
:: (2): The DM decided to change the rules, didn't tell anybody, and isn't
:: interested in being tacful or considerate about it.
:: (3): There are special conditions at work here that cause the spell to
:: temporarily be at less-than-full effectiveness.
:: If (3) is the answer, an intelligent DM can avoid debate simply by saying
:: something like "For some reason, the spell doesn't seem fully effective"
:: or "there must be something at work here that you don't know about".
:: Saying "So?" simply makes (1) and (2) seem more likely, since (1), (2)
:: and "So?" are hallmarks of bad DMs.
: I understand that, but, a average or above intelligence player should be
: able to understand that without jumping to the conclusion that the GM is
: changing the rules.
What makes (3) any less likely than (1) or (2), particularly in light
of the fact that the DM's hostile attitude makes it more likely that
he is a bad or inexperienced DM? If (3) is the answer, why on earth
didn't the DM just say "there are extenuating circumstances"? That
would be the intelligent thing to do, since it (a) is much less
hostile, and therefore less likely to annoy the players, and (b) it
immediately and permanently deflates any possible rules-lawyering;
you can't dig out a rule to deal with an extenuating circumstance
you don't know about.
:: A lot of the more arrogant people on this newsgroup like to pretend they
:: are some kind of UberGamers -- like they never fuck up and forget anything
:: while running a game. One of the reasons players quote rules the the DM
:: is that, sometimes, the DM forgets the rules.
: True this can happen. But why assume it is the GM making a mistake
: and not something special?
Because the DM in question has adopted a hostile and adversarial attitude
when his ruling was questioned. There is no reason to do that sort
of thing if you actually have a good reason for your ruling.
: Now if the GM has a history of making mistakes...
All DMs have a history of making mistakes. I have never met a person
in my life who hasn't made mistakes at some point in the past.
:: The players tend to have a good grasp of what their characters can and
:: cannot do within the rules
: True. There have been many times when I have seen players assuming
: things without justification.
And copping an attitude with them only affirms their beliefs. If you
saw a cop beating somebody with a nightstick, and you said "Hey! That's
police brutality, you can't do that!" and the cop said "So?"... well,
you might have been off-base in assuming that the cop was using
unjustified force, but the cop has now stupidily responded in a way
that confirms your beliefs. The DM in the above scenario is doing
the same thing.
When players leap to conclusions, the correct thing to do is NOT treat
them in a contemptuous and condescending manner. You simply point
out why their conclusions are wrong, and move on.
::: Perhaps there is a reason in that hidden information that causes
::: something different.
:: So how is "So?" a good answer? If I point out a rule to somebody and
:: they say "So?", that tells me one thing: they don't care about the rules.
:: It doesn't tell me "That rules doesn't apply here". If you want to
:: tell somebody "that rule doesn't apply here", say "that rule doesn't
:: apply here". If you want to tell them "You don't know why that rule
:: doesn't apply here", say "You don't know why that rule doesn't apply
:: here." You should only tell them "So?" if you want them to think "I don't
:: care what you think."
: Now perhaps you are not havent' read the above articles, but, you bitch
: to me about the "So?" when it is blatently someone elses.
Timeline:
Ian posts his "So?" article.
I post to criticize "so?"'s validity as a response.
You post to tell me I'm wrong.
If you don't think "So?" is a good response, don't correct me when I
say it isn't. I am not "bitching to you" about the "so?"; you threw
your $0.02 into a pre-existing discussion about it.
: You may have missed my point. When the player disrupts the game with his
: question about such and such rule the GM needs to respond.
Duh. I pointed that fact out myself in the article you initially
criticized. I simply said that "So?" was not a valid DM response.
: Now do you want that response to give you, the player, a hint as to
: what is going on?
As I have pointed out already, you are ignoring the vast field of
responses that lie between "giving the players hints" and "telling
the players to go fuck themselves when they question you".
::: (Then again, some players are gods gift to role-playing so the problem
::: must be anywhere but with themselves)
:: See? This is just the sort of DM-afflicting God Complex I was talking
:: about earlier.
: What. That some player have an over inflated self importance?
The ignorance of the fact that DMs are just as inclined to feelings
of self-importance, and (due to the increased complexity of their job)
more inclined to make mistakes. You are further displaying signs of
DM God Complex by assuming that any players who question the DM's
rulings must be arrogant, egotistical, and convinced that they can't
possibly be wrong.
: That isn't the GMs fault.
Arrogance and tactless responses are always the DM's fault. No matter
how fantastic a DM you may be (or may think you are), it is still
quite possible that you have made mistakes. When you make a ruling that
appears contrary to common sense and existing rules, it is quite
reasonable for the players to suspect you might have made a mistake.
If the players think you've made a mistake, the intelligent thing to
do is to cite the rule or precedent that is leading them to think
you might have made a mistake. The intelligent thing for the DM to
do is NOT to adopt an adversarial attitude as Ian did, or to assume
the players are arrogant and self-obsessed the way you do, but rather
to (a) admit the mistake if one was made, or (b) address the
player's concern as well as possible. Even a simple "there are
extenuating circumstances you don't know about" is good enough.
:: A player needs to keep track of far fewer rules and variables than
:: a DM. This means that if there is a fuck-up, it is more likely to
:: be the DM who made it.
: Perhaps, but, does the player have access to ALL THE INFORMATION to make
: a judgement in this situation?
Asked and answered. A player doesn't need "all the information" in
order to ask a question. The player's lack of full information is the
REASON he's suggesting the DM may be wrong. The player has two
options: he can sit there and numbly accept every single thing the
DM says, no matter how illogical it seems, without ever raising a
question... or he can speak up when things don't seem right.
:: This is particularly likely to be true if
:: the DM in question is the kind who says "So?" in response to questions
:: about possible mistakes on his part -- experienced DMs don't need to
:: get so defensive.
: Perhaps the GM is being vague and not wanting to give out a hint.
Then why not say "that rule doesn't apply here, for reasons you don't
know"? Saying "So?" is a "vague" answer, sure, but the vagueness is
caused by the fact that the player sits there thinking "Is there
something going on here that I don't know about, or is the DM just
an asshole?"; with my reply, the player thinks "I guess there's
something going on here I don't know about". My reply removes the
doubt about my personal DMing style and ability, and doesn't give
the player any more OOC knowledge than "so?" does.
::: Tell me, Do you want the GM to blurt out "Oh, yes that rule is fine,
::: buy, the evil cleric is wearing the amulet of dennies which protects
::: him from that effect".
:: Is there something wrong with saying "That rule doesn't apply in this
:: situation?"
: Yes. You have now given the player a hint that the rule doesn't apply in
: this situation.
As opposed to your way, which gives him a hint that either (a) the
rules doesn't apply in this situation or (b) you, the DM, have
decided to throw the rulebook out the window and cheat by using
different standards for NPCs than you do for PCs? How is that preferable?
Obviously from an IC point of view the _character_ is going to be
sitting there thinking "Hey, that spell should have worked, but it
didn't." If the OOC reason the spell didn't work is that you, the DM, have
decided the spell doesn't work, the character would know that ICly
because the universe that character lives in would be one in which that
spell simply doesn't work.
:: How about "Your spell has no effect, for reasons your character
:: doesn't know?"
: You have still given the player a hint.
No more than you have, and my way prevents the players from thinking
I've fucked up.
:: Both of those responses leave NO DOUBT that you, the DM,
:: are aware of the rules but are also aware of extenuating circumstances.
: Both have given the player a hint. Now this player should have put 2 + 2
: together and then decide whether it is worth the effort to pursue this
: mystery.
Why? You are saying the player should have no IC way of suspecting
there were extenuating circumstances; ergo, the player should not
be allowed to ICly investigate those circumstances.
:: Saying "So?" just says "Oh, yes, that's what the rule says, but since I
:: don't give a fuck what the rules say or what you think, you might as well
:: sit down and shut up."
: That is the only way you can imagine that statement?
Yes, because competent DMs can phrase it better. You are saying that
DMs should refuse to confirm or deny which rules they use because
that confirmation or denial would give the players hints. I'm sorry,
but that is simply lousy DMing. It is vitally important that players
understand the system.
: Will it always lead to that conclusion? "So?" could be a prompt for
: more information from the player.
Not in the English language, it can't. In the context of the original
conversation it is clear that "so?" is being used in a dismissive
fashion; that is the way the original poster intended it. Furthermore
I would like to point out that you criticized me for following up
the "so?" with "So are we using these rules or not?", which suggests
to me that you aren't interested in letting players ask for more
information, either.
::: If that is what you want then fine and dandy. if
::: not, then what do you want him to do?
:: I made a number of suggestions above -- basic, simple solutions
:: requiring a minimum of intelligence or experience, but all superior
:: to "So?".
: In your opinion.
Obviously. All statements of relative merit are opinion.
::: Either he hints at it in some way or he doesn't.
:: If special conditions apply, the character would almost always be in
:: a position to notice that something wasn't quite right.
: Ah. So you admit that it could be something other than a rules mistake on
: the GMs part
I don't have to "admit" it now, because I flat-out _stated_ it orginally!
Go back and read my post. I listed three possible reasons for a "So?"
response from a DM. #3 was that there were extenuating circumstances;
#2 was the the DM had changed the rules without telling anybody. My
criticism of #2 and #3 centered on the lack of tact and consideration
on the DM's part as shown by his callous dismissal of player questions.
Regardless of the DM's reason for saying "so?", however, the actual
meaning of "so?" boils down to "I don't care what you think or what
the rules say, so you might as well shut up."
:: Even if that is not the case, a little politeness on the DM's part
:: never hurt anybody.
: And you consider it polite for the player to disrupt the game with his
: rules opinion?
So in your opinion a player is never, ever, ever allowed to question
a DM in any way, shape, or form, no matter how screwed-up the DM's
rulings seem to be? If you were told that your character just took
200 points of damage from a fireball, it wouldn't even cross your
mind to say "Um, don't fireballs normally have a maximum damage of 60?"
Of course, if you were the DM in question the reply would just
be "so?", so I guess the player might as well not bother.
-- Dan
David Trimboli
Of course no one is going to continue to fully describe the firing of this
magical bow in an extended combat. It need be done only once. The point
here is to show, in an example, how the DM should tip off the players that
the normal rules do not necessarily apply in the current situation, without
explaining WHY.
Suppose Mr. Warrior has this magical bow which does 5d8 points of damage,
but that this fact is unknown to the players. The poorly handled situation
runs something like this:
DM: The warrior shoots at you with a bow. ::rolls:: It's a hit! Take
::rolls:: 30 points of damage.
Player: What? A bow only does 1d6 points of damage!
DM: So?
The DM *should* have said something other than "So?" to the player. It
wasn't helpful. If the bow's magical nature isn't clear after firing, he
should have said something like, "Somehow, this warrior has managed to shoot
you squarely in the chest, piercing your armor! Even as you stagger back,
you wonder at how he could have done this. Your defenses were up, and you
thought you had the arrow covered. Something strange is going on here."
One the warrior has shot once, the player knows that he can probably expect
a huge amount of damage from Mr. Warrior in the future, and will not
question the DM on that point.
David
Stardate 98282.6
Lawrence R. Mead wrote in message <6gt6ri$87i$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>...
>Uncle Figgy (dwcope{spaminated}@aol{formyprotection}.com) wrote:
>: It's much more dramatic (and much better roleplaying on the GMs part)
>: to say something like, "the warrior pointing his bow at you pulls back
>: and lets go. Instead of the normal 'twang' of a normal bowstring, this
>: one seems almost to thunder through the air. Maybe it's just the
>: light, but it almost looks like the arrow blurs as it flies toward
>: you!"
>
ABouch8282
What I don't tolerate with my players (and some try it) is knocking the dice
over when they missed the goblin by a single point. I see what it originally
was but they try (unsuccessfully) to get a re-roll.
On the other hand, I don't mind bending the rules for my players. The game is
supposed to be fun for everyone and it wont be if there isn't some amount of
flexibility. Even if the game degenerates to a Monty-Haul/Hack-and-Slash style,
it would still be worth it if we have an evening of fun, not strict adherence
to set of rules that were meant to be evolved and changed.
--------------------------------------
ABouc...@aol.com
~)--|
"God is not on the side with the largest battalions, but with the best shots."
-- Voltaire
Fraak
> Obviously retraining is in order. Pick up a copy of Paranoia, and run it
> once a month or as required. Believe me, they'll never complain about
the
> rules again!
or HOL
Steven Taylor
Wayne J. Rasmussen wrote:
> Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : A lot of the more arrogant people on this newsgroup like to pretend
> they
> : are some kind of UberGamers -- like they never fuck up and forget
> anything
> : while running a game. One of the reasons players quote rules the the
> DM
> : is that, sometimes, the DM forgets the rules.
>
> True this can happen. But why assume it is the GM making a mistake
> and
> not something special? Now if the GM has a history of making
> mistakes...
But if you won't question the DM in the first place, and merely assume
he has a reason for ignoring the rule, how will you establish a history
of messing up? Trust, in all situations including role-playing, is
earned. Until the DM shows that his seemingly arbitrary rulings are
really based on something, there is every reason to doublecheck with the
DM if there is confusion over a rule. Over time, players will learn to
trust or not trust the DM.
Steven Taylor
Driakos.
You expect the players to fall down on their
>hands and knees and suck you off out of gratitude just because you've
>wasted half your life on the campaign?
HAHAHAA!!! Dan I love you. Good points. The DM is there to make sure
the players, and himself, have fun. If he/she wants to spend exorbant
amounts of time, to create, what he/she feels is a worthy adventure, so be
it. If the DM throws it together, fine. As long as everyone has fun. If
they want to suck the DM off for a good adventure, that is okay too.
Driakos.
Dan Bongard
Driakos. (pete_...@email.msn.com) wrote:
: You expect the players to fall down on their
I'd definitely award extra XP for that.
-- Dan
towo...@concentric.net
Scott Stilling <SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca> might have said:
>Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
>get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
>whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
>that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
*shrug* I do it. Not to often, but then the guy I usually play under
doesn't forget the relavant rules too often.
Heck, I've been known to impose penalties on myself because I thought the
situation warranted it, even if the DM didn't assign any.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
William J. Leary Jr.
Camille Klein wrote in message <6h16qj$6rl$3...@pinta.pagesz.net>...
>Quoth David Trimboli <sus...@email.msn.com>:
>> Of course no one is going to continue to fully describe the firing of
this
>
> My DM's response would be an eerie whistle indicating that something
> really messed up was in the offing--at which point yon humble Cleric would
> hurl a couple of Flamestrikes his way, followed by lightning bolts and
> magic missiles from our two mages.
Good approach.
In similar situations I usually say something like "Yes, that's what it
says. I expect your highly experienced fighter is a bit surprised, don't
you?"
They get the message, though I kind of like your DM's approach for dramatic
effect.
- Bill
Camille Klein
Quoth David Trimboli <sus...@email.msn.com>:
: Of course no one is going to continue to fully describe the firing of this
: here is to show, in an example, how the DM should tip off the players that
: the normal rules do not necessarily apply in the current situation, without
: explaining WHY.
: Suppose Mr. Warrior has this magical bow which does 5d8 points of damage,
: but that this fact is unknown to the players. The poorly handled situation
: runs something like this:
: DM: The warrior shoots at you with a bow. ::rolls:: It's a hit! Take
: ::rolls:: 30 points of damage.
: Player: What? A bow only does 1d6 points of damage!
: DM: So?
My DM's response would be an eerie whistle indicating that something
really messed up was in the offing--at which point yon humble Cleric would
hurl a couple of Flamestrikes his way, followed by lightning bolts and
magic missiles from our two mages.
In addition to damage from the rest of the party, of course.
--Camille.
--
"It's not everyday you meet a legend." -- Mike Stackpole
The EHL: http://www.pagesz.net/~godmom/ehl/ UIN:2499540
"It's spelled WOMAN and WOMEN. Maybe I should start calling males "myn"
and "min"--just to make sure that we're Politically Correct here. *snx*"
Camille Klein
Quoth Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com>:
: : it. If the DM throws it together, fine. As long as everyone has fun. If
: : they want to suck the DM off for a good adventure, that is okay too.
: I'd definitely award extra XP for that.
My DM would too--but only if it's me[1].
--Camille.
[1]After all, I'm the one he's married to. :)
Camille Klein
Quoth William J. Leary Jr. <Bill_...@msn.com>:
: Camille Klein wrote in message <6h16qj$6rl$3...@pinta.pagesz.net>...
: >Quoth David Trimboli <sus...@email.msn.com>:
: >> Of course no one is going to continue to fully describe the firing of
: this
: >
: > My DM's response would be an eerie whistle indicating that something
: > really messed up was in the offing--at which point yon humble Cleric would
: > hurl a couple of Flamestrikes his way, followed by lightning bolts and
: > magic missiles from our two mages.
: Good approach.
We like to think so. Of course this is the same party that was expecting
a big fight from a beholder (for whom we were lying in wait--it had
attacked a local village and was preparing to head out again to kill more
of those pesky non-beholders), only to be sorely disappointed when I and
the other Cleric in the party took it out with two Call Lightnings (the DM
biffed both saves (and how!) and we rolled nice and high for the damage).
I don't know who was more surprised--the Beholder or the two Clerics![1]
--Camille.
[1]Before anyone mentions the big eye--we were lying in wait, as I said
before, and I and the other Cleric had prepared two Call Lightnings each a
turn beforehand (and were waiting outside its anti-magic range).
StephenJ
Dan Bongard wrote:
>
> What amazes me is how some DMs adopt this martyr-like attitude -- as
> if they were personally doing the world a favor by nobly sacrificing
> themselves for The Good of the Game. Come on, guys, get over yourselves;
I agree. Personally, i've never viewed my DM preparation as "work", even
though it is. It's always been a labor of love, because i love to DM!
OTOH, it's cool when the players express an appreciation for my efforts.
I particularly enjoy the tradition in one of my gaming groups, whereby
the players buy the DM's share of the beer and pizza!
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
Dan Bongard
StephenJ (sja...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: OTOH, it's cool when the players express an appreciation for my efforts.
: I particularly enjoy the tradition in one of my gaming groups, whereby
: the players buy the DM's share of the beer and pizza!
A friend of mine coined the term "snackrifice" for this tradition. :)
-- Dan
David Trimboli
>> that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
>> right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
Right here. Being a Dungeon Master myself, I understand the rigors
involved, and will always point out significant errors, even if they do not
favor me. If I'd just recently undergone an alignment change, for instance,
and the DM had decided that I'd be getting half normal experience as a
penalty, but then gives me full experience, I'd point it out. I see no
point in cheating.
David
Stardate 98291.1
Robert C. Eickwort
> >Scott Stilling <SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> ><35319F...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
> >> I have yet to find a player
> >> that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
> >> recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
> >> right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
>
In a PBeM game I'm playing in, the DM was not entirely familiar with the
rules for creating holy water. The priests of the party, which are
several (including myself), were taking incredible advantage of this,
such as a 3rd-level priest turning an entire well full of water -
several hundred gallons - into holy water simply by blessing it. At
that point, I looked up the rules myself and sent them to the DM. My
own character being a priest of weather and oceans, up to that point I
could essentially make holy water by blessing a jar full of ocean or
rain water. Moreover, our party is up against a horde of undead (a
little bit at a time, thank you), and unlimited holy water would have
been supremely helpful. I shot not only myself but the whole party in
the foot by bringing it up, but I couldn't conscience the imbalance.
- Eques Rufus, the Incorrigible Rules Lawyer
StephenJ
Three cheers for snackrifice! Of course, an "honest" DM like myself
could never be swayed by any such burnt offerings. ;)
Ubiquitous
>Sometimes it is obvious. Even when it is not obvious, it is nice to know
>that there is SOME reasoning behind GM fiat. For instance, if you go
>to cast "Cure Light Wounds" and the DM says it only heals 1d4 instead
>of 1d8, and says "So?" when you point out that the spell heals 1d8 according
>to the book, there are three possibilities:
>
>(1): The DM meant to follow the rules as written, but forgot the correct
> die type and isn't willing to show weakness in front of the PCs.
>(2): The DM decided to change the rules, didn't tell anybody, and isn't
> interested in being tacful or considerate about it.
>(3): There are special conditions at work here that cause the spell to
> temporarily be at less-than-full effectiveness.
It's been my experience to be (1) most of the time.
==============================================================================
"Kiss it!" William Jefferson Clinton
scott
> Dan Bongard wrote:
> > StephenJ (sja...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >
> > : OTOH, it's cool when the players express an appreciation for my efforts.
> > : I particularly enjoy the tradition in one of my gaming groups, whereby
> > : the players buy the DM's share of the beer and pizza!
> >
> > A friend of mine coined the term "snackrifice" for this tradition. :)
>
> Three cheers for snackrifice! Of course, an "honest" DM like myself
> could never be swayed by any such burnt offerings. ;)
Of course, one is easily swayed by those NOT offering. :-)
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, The Grimoire Arcana, The World Shapers' Page, &
My AD&D Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it."
StephenJ
scott wrote:
>
> In article <3536EE...@ix.netcom.com>, sja...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Dan Bongard wrote:
> > > StephenJ (sja...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > : OTOH, it's cool when the players express an appreciation for my efforts.
> > > : I particularly enjoy the tradition in one of my gaming groups, whereby
> > > : the players buy the DM's share of the beer and pizza!
> > >
> > > A friend of mine coined the term "snackrifice" for this tradition. :)
> >
> > Three cheers for snackrifice! Of course, an "honest" DM like myself
> > could never be swayed by any such burnt offerings. ;)
>
> Of course, one is easily swayed by those NOT offering. :-)
>
Touche' !!
Dan Bongard
:>: OTOH, it's cool when the players express an appreciation for my efforts.
:>: I particularly enjoy the tradition in one of my gaming groups, whereby
:>: the players buy the DM's share of the beer and pizza!
:> A friend of mine coined the term "snackrifice" for this tradition. :)
: Three cheers for snackrifice! Of course, an "honest" DM like myself
: could never be swayed by any such burnt offerings. ;)
Of course not! We are fair and impartial at all times.
-- Dan
Jimmy Kerl
Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> In article <dbongard...@netcom.com>, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) says:
>
> >Sometimes it is obvious. Even when it is not obvious, it is nice to know
> >that there is SOME reasoning behind GM fiat. For instance, if you go
> >to cast "Cure Light Wounds" and the DM says it only heals 1d4 instead
> >of 1d8, and says "So?" when you point out that the spell heals 1d8 according
> >to the book, there are three possibilities:
> >
> >(1): The DM meant to follow the rules as written, but forgot the correct
> > die type and isn't willing to show weakness in front of the PCs.
> >(2): The DM decided to change the rules, didn't tell anybody, and isn't
> > interested in being tacful or considerate about it.
> >(3): There are special conditions at work here that cause the spell to
> > temporarily be at less-than-full effectiveness.
>
> It's been my experience to be (1) most of the time.
Very good point. DM's have authority over rules of the game; but
players (in my own opinion) have a right to be at least somewhat
familuar with those rules.
Jimmy
>
> ==============================================================================
> "Kiss it!" William Jefferson Clinton
--
Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Section 227, unsolicited commercial
E-mail sent to this address is subject to a $500 archival fee per
copy. E-mail recieved after any reciept of this notice implies
acceptance of these terms. A copy of USC Title 47, Section 227
may be found online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Threshold RPG
>>
>
>Three cheers for snackrifice! Of course, an "honest" DM like myself
>could never be swayed by any such burnt offerings. ;)
Wow! Thats a great term. As for them being burnt, I would assume that makes
them even less likely to attract any kind of favoritism.
Now, what do you do if you game with your girlfriend or wife and she offers
more appealing snacks as a means of influence?
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Threshold RPG
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>Driakos. (pete_...@email.msn.com) wrote:
>
>: You expect the players to fall down on their
>: >hands and knees and suck you off out of gratitude just because you've
>: >wasted half your life on the campaign?
>
>: HAHAHAA!!! Dan I love you. Good points. The DM is there to make sure
>: the players, and himself, have fun. If he/she wants to spend exorbant
>: amounts of time, to create, what he/she feels is a worthy adventure, so be
>: they want to suck the DM off for a good adventure, that is okay too.
>
>I'd definitely award extra XP for that.
If all it took was XP rewards to get someone (of the proper gender for your
orientation) to suck you off this would be a very peaceful and happy world.
Dontcha think?
Paul Lenig
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:52:55 GMT, w...@netcom.com (Wayne J. Rasmussen)
wrote:
>Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Ian R Malcomson (i...@assistap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: : Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
>: : DM: "So?"
>
>: Well, the obvious response is "So are we using the PHB or not?" As
>: a player, I would appreciate knowing what the rules of the game are.
>
>: DM fiat is fine, but only if attention is paid to consistency and
>: care is taken to make sure the players know the rules.
>
>Can you as a player know all the information that is hidden behind the
>GM's screen? If not, how do you know that the rule hasn't been followed?
>Perhaps there is a reason in that hidden information that causes
>something different. (Then again, some players are gods gift to
>role-playing so the problem must be anywhere but with themselves)
>
>Tell me, Do you want the GM to blurt out "Oh, yes that rule is fine,
>buy, the evil cleric is wearing the amulet of dennies which protects him
>from that effect". If that is what you want then fine and dandy. if
>not, then what do you want him to do? Either he hints at it in some way
>or he doesn't. And maybe that is what some players want or need to
>handle the game. If you are getting told everything, why play the
>game?
>
>This is why I think that such players are boorish or just bad role
>players.
A good point, but I think you may be a little too black and white
here. It is not uncommon for even an experienced DM to forget a rule
that he would normally be using as written. It is very appropriate
for a player to politely bring this rule to his attention....once.
If there is some extenuating circumstance, the DM can then just say "I
am aware of that rule, thank you." and move on. Yes, the player now
knows that something is out of the ordinary, but the player should
know that. After all, a basic truth in the way the world normally
works has been changed.
On the other hand, if the DM forgot the rule, he can now correct
himself, or if he has changed to rule, for the long term, he can now
say something about it, so the player doesn't assume that something
wierd is going on, when everything is actually normal.
Hey, it's just my two cents worth. :)
Paul L.
Paul Lenig
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 22:16:03 -0700, Scott Stilling
<SSti...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Nick Ashley wrote:
>>
>> > >Player: "But the Player's Handbooks says.."
>> > >DM: "So?"
>> >
>> > I tried that once. The scene continued:
>> > Player I: "You have to go by the rules just like the rest of us."
>> > DM: "Huh-uh. I am the DM. I control this world."
>> > Player II: "So you can just jerk us around however you want?"
>> > DM: "Well..."
>> > Player III: "All in favor of replacing [DM] with [Player II] say aye!"
>> > Players: "AYE!"
>> ME: Ok go ahead and buy a shitload of books and spen hours of your own time
>> creating dungeons and towns. just don't ask me for any help, DM proceeds to
>> leave with all campaign material.
>
>Here, here. Someone who understands the work involved to be a DM. Don't
>get me wrong I enjoy it, but I find it totally pathectic when players
>whine about rules only when it's convinient. I have yet to find a player
>that say, "Hey you forgot that rule such and such... I should have only
>recieved half of the usual experience points for that adventure." Ya
>right. I hear Asmodeous has converted to Chritianity too!
Maybe it's the level of players you deal with, but I don't find this
to be all that uncommon in my group. For instance, one of the players
recently got a fairly powerful weapon. After being told all of it's
bonuses, he tallied up the damage, and immediately said "Something is
wrong here, this total is WAY too high." and asked the DM to confirm
his totals. The DM did, and the total was slightly off.
Bing! Hey, the player lost some damage potential there, this was one
case where pointing out the rules was not convenient to him.
Paul L.
The Huntsman
It has been my experience that a good DM never has to worry about
Rules Lawyers. The players are having to much find to let the rule get
in the way....
The Huntsman
Dave Brohman
:g.com>
Distribution:
The Huntsman (cgu...@mindspring.com) wrote:
Absolutely unture. Many a rules lawyer cares nothing for the 'fun' of
the game as perceived by others. Their 'fun' comes from tripping up the
GM and bending the rules to fir their fancy, as well as proving to the
other players and the GM both how well they know the rules of the game.
Bad players are bad players, whether in a good game or a bad. Being in
a good game can sometimes help sway a bad player from their wayward
path, but not often.
Funnily enough, rules lwayers sometimes make the best GMs if, and only
if, their encyclopeadic recall of the minutia of the games sytem is
coupled with imagination. A rare combination granted, but when it
happens the games are not too bad, especially combats which rarely ever
slow the pace of the game in these cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman http://chat.carleton.ca/~dbrohman
dbro...@chat.carleton.ca In Cyberspace, nobody cares if you scream
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek A. Weimer
RulesLawyers suck big time!!
We get rid of them...one way or another. As a DM I have no problem telling
them to get bent!
--
Derek A. Weimer
dwe...@one.net
"All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost"
-J.R.R. Tolkien
Dave Brohman wrote in message <6ji2rp$8i$2...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
the count
You get rid of them by playing Paranoia a few times with them.... }:)
Rules Lawyer: But it says in the rules I get a +4 bonus for this type of
check!
Computer: What is a "+4 bonus", citizen?
or
Computer: That information is classified Ultraviolet. What is you
clearance level, citizen?
or
Computer: It is treason for level red citizens to have read the rules.
Please report for term...
[Other players: *zap* *zap* *zap*]
Personally, were I the GM, I'd go with the third one...
God, I love that game =)
Bill Arkell
The Huntsman wrote in message <355c6ebd...@news.mindspring.com>...
>It has been my experience that a good DM never has to worry about
>Rules Lawyers. The players are having to much find to let the rule get
>in the way....
>
>The Huntsman
>
Mostly I agree HOWEVER it does tend to break down if a player is going to
die or lose a level or treasured magic item. Then the rules lawyers come
out of the closet to find a loophole to save it.
I had one player who would agree to a dispute resolution system but the
moment it went against him it went out the window. For example, the
loremaster kit for a bard. It states that the bard casts spells as one
level higher. Everyone else agreed that this only applied to the NUMBER of
spells. He wanted his bard to have the spell effects work at his level +1,
which would allow a 6th level bard to get 7hd fireball while a 6th level
fire elementalist (with more EXP) got 6hd. He NEVER accepted this even when
we used the agreed upon (by him) system of voting on it. He voted yes, his
brother abstained and everyone else voted no. He argued all night.
Christian or Denise Walker
Bill Arkell <bi...@worldchat.com> wrote in article
<6jirob$rdh$1...@news1.worldchat.com>...
I don't know how you kept your cool with this guy. We had a similar
situation and the GM looked at the player and said, "If you don't like it,
then leave. I don't need this crap." The player left the table and play
went on, much more smoothly this time.
From time to time a player gets on my case and it never goes to far because
I won't hesitate to tell them o get lost. A game is supposed to be fun and
when some maggot starts whining they have just un-invited themselves from
future play.
--
"I'm tasting some of the guano. Do I feel different?? If so, I'm going to
mix some with my drinking water."
- Dave from Knights of the Dinner table #11
***********
gaming fun at http://users.deltanet.com/~antissa
Jedi
i used to direct the players to the page in the book that says "these rules are
a guideline.The Dm ultimately decides." or some such. used to kow the page,
column and paragraph, but havent needed it in years. anybody remember where it
is?