PDA

View Full Version : Rules Lawyer Problem.



Elixia
2009-06-29, 04:31 AM
hey!
I'm currently running my first campaign, i've dabbled in dming once or twice but this is my first full on campaign.
anyway, the group is quite forgiving of my mistakes and such, theres two expiereince dm's in the group who give me a small jab every now and then ;) but the problem i have currently is with one of the players.

as a group there are 4 actors/storytellers, they love character development interesting plots and creative combat. As a group they mesh well. the other player, a cleric, is more of a thinker and i believe he actually has the high IQ of all of us!

One the more storytelling players, a paladin, recently joined our group, so he's a little new to the rules but has land on his feet with flare. but sometime he needs a little help with doing his powers or skill checks.

this is where one of the problems sorta starts, as soon as a 'rules debate' comes to light, the cleric will grab the rules book and the players character sheet in question and start pouring over it. sometimes this can hold up combat for 15 mins!

Fortunatly one of th older DM's, our bard, has pretty much read the books cover to cover and as of the next session it taking the books and sitting away of the cleric to avoid future 'rules debates' i'm hoping this works.

the second problem though is a little tougher to handle, heres an example;

group in a fight with ice archons in a campsite.
Paladin: i have an idea! i want to go through the tent grab the cauldron inside and throw throught the other side melting ice baddie!
DM: Nice idea! ok make a strengh check to rip through the tent!
(paldan passes the checks)
fighter: thats a cool idea, i going to help him out.
DM: Ok one of you are going to have make a check to pull the fire caulron off its stand.
fighter: i'll do it, i have higher strengh (passes check)
DM: Ok congrats on a high check but due to sudden movement some of the oil inside spilled out, you'll take some fire damage.
fighter: i'll take i'm a big man.
paladin: ok i'll rip a hole in tent where i can heard the combat and leg it through before the fighter throws it. (makes checks, and pass around the combat without provoking any atttack of opportunity)
DM: Okay make another check to throw it (fighter passes again!) great! you throw the cauldron, the oil splats all over the ice archons causing them fire damage and more from the impact of the cauldron itself!
Cleric: hmm but wouldn't the fire damage be less since oil boils and freezes and a different temperture to water, also -- (a chemistry and physics lesson ensued)

and so the debate went on, he stated that the oil would freeze faster so i ended up giving the ice archons a high DC for theyre new oil/ice armour and as the bard put it, he made a very cool scene become very tidious.

other problem arise when some of the players approach me in confidence about their character backgrounds, like they want their charecter to have a secret honorable mission that they doing or want me to introduce a love interest or something else thats personal to the character they want to development along side the campiagn. the cleric, if he catch wind of it will intergate the character, using diplomacy and insight check glarlore! and okay i will allow it to a degree but when 30 mins goes by the cleric is STILL asking questions and making checks it starting to grate on the group.

everyone at some point has asked to stop, to be quiet etc etc. but he keeps doing it.
i know its in his nature to question everything and to inform us of everything even if our eyes glaze over, but i wish he'd either agree to disagree or just drop the issue. He's really close friends with members of the group and i dont want him to feel put out since this could cause friction among them out of sessions.

how would you tackle this problem?

Kemper Boyd
2009-06-29, 04:47 AM
1: Say "This is how I've called it now, you can bring this up later if you want to discuss the rules. We don't debate them during the game."

2: Insight and diplomacy dont work on other player characters.

Or just don't invite him to the games any longer.

pingcode20
2009-06-29, 04:48 AM
When the Cleric tries to bog the game down in details, just hush him with the MST3K Mantra.

It's just a game. Relax.

Failing that, give him a sentence to make his point, rule one way or another, then move on.

As for the constant background probing?

Invoke the Diplomacy retry rules - if he does well first time, yeah, maybe your other players might give him a little snippet, but afterwards, their characters simply aren't willing to splurge their life story or spend any more time talking with him.

Just think of how a real person would react if someone kept probing at them for twenty plus minutes about something you don't want to talk about - any willingness to talk from being diplomatic would rapidly evaporate.

bosssmiley
2009-06-29, 04:50 AM
Tell your smart-but-pedantic cleric player to pipe down and go along with it. You're playing a game of fast-paced heroic adventure here, and rules checking, hard science objections and constant rules-fiddling will bog it down in a way that will annoy both you and the other players.

Your DM hand is strong, but you are merciful. He must be made to see this.:smallcool:

AslanCross
2009-06-29, 05:06 AM
One cannot expect physics and chemistry to work in a fantasy world exactly the way it does in the real world. If he gets uppity about it, simply say "Sorry, but it's bogging down the game. Let's just move on, shall we?"

It would also be even more effective if you discuss before the next session what exactly the group's collective definition of fun is. If the cleric player believes that following hard science helps him suspend his sense of disbelief, it's still subject to what other players think about it.

Now it's interesting that your rules lawyer thinks he can make interaction skill checks versus other players. I'm pretty sure the 4E rules explicitly say that they don't work that way. So much for rules lawyering.

I've had a rules lawyer in the making once in my games, and he would get more than a little frustrating to handle. Thankfully he was my student, so when I put on my authoritative teacher voice and told him to shut up, he would. :D

huttj509
2009-06-29, 05:15 AM
First off, I gotta say it, olive oil (the type most likely used for lamps, well, A type likely used) freezes at about -6 degrees celsius (colder than water), so the ice would definitely start melting before the oil froze, unless it were colder than the normal freezing point of water, for which there is not enough information to assume. Fire damage is perfectly acceptable, in the same manner as a burning hunk of wood doing its fire damage before it has a chance to get extinguished. Sorry, physics degree, I'm required to analyze things like that when someone brings them up or else they come take it away.

For bringing real world physics into things, some groups have people who similarly enjoy poking around with that stuff. In those groups, it doesn't really matter if you take a half hour discussing the physics of a fireball interaction, because everyone's having fun. This is not your group.

Since there's one person who's an issue, talk to him about it. You're the DM, one of your responsibilities is to try to keep things moving. Point this out to him, and let him know that if a rule confusion comes up that lasts more than 5 minutes, you'll make a ruling for the session, and hammer out the details after the game. I say 5 minutes because, well, there will be times when someone uses a power, someone else points out it doesn't work that way, because it was misread, and you can just check the power quickly. For improvised things, that's 100% the DM's call how it works. There may be general damage guidelines given in the DMG, I have not read it, but if it's not spelled out, just pick something that feels right. Maybe in the damage range of a striker encounter power for clever use of the environment (like the oil, which even seems like it targeted a weakness). You want it to remain good enough that players aren't penalized for doing something clever, per se, as opposed to just doing a normal attack, but you don't necessarily want it strong enough that for the rest of that level they're looking for burning braziers, carrying them along from other rooms, etc.

As to the background of other characters, it should mostly be roleplayed in person. Diplomacy in particular. I could make an argument for making an insight roll, as that does not control the target's reaction at all, just the information you can glean (if one player's lying to another, I could argue for an insight roll to determine that, but it would need to be a one shot thing, no retry, and you only know he's hiding something, not specifically what, unless you convince them in person to tell you). But yeah, in general social skills do not work on PCs.

However, if I were going along, and I started to suspect a fellow party member was hiding some horrible secret, I'd be trying to find out. I'd want to know if it might come up to bite me in the future. That behavior is not necessarily unreasonable, unless the only clue the player got was that the other player was talking with the DM about something. If I had an in game reason to suspect something, I'd be nosy. Again, handle it by talking to the guy. Point out that if he's trying to convince another PC to talk, he should do it with words, not a die roll. If the other players get fed up with the interrogation, their characters might well be getting fed up as well, and can join in.

"Dude, lay off him and let's get rid of this cult."
"But he might secretly be married!"
"We're in the middle of some cultist infested ruins, trying to surprise the enemy, and you're making all this noise because you're jealous? Are you TRYING to get us ambushed?"

Elixia
2009-06-29, 05:20 AM
Well thank you gentleman for your advise :D

the player on player skill check thing then will be dissolved, so that would be a worry anymore. i think i'll start the next session with some new rules of 'rules debates' or 'science debates'

if theres a rules debate comes up and isn't reslove quickly then i'll give them time to resolve by the end of the round and push back they're iniative. if by the end of the round they're still un-sure then they simple have to do a tried and tested power or a basic melee attack. sounds fair?

as for science debates, i think should be something he can discuss afterwards when everyone is winding down from the session instead of during.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-29, 05:22 AM
Cleric: hmm but wouldn't the fire damage be less since oil boils and freezes and a different temperture to water, also -- (a chemistry and physics lesson ensued)
That is easy: invoke Rule Zero and get on with playing. Long rules arguments do not belong on a game table.

If that doesn't help, play a session of Paranoia with him (a game in which discussing the rules is treason and will get the character summarily executed)

chilepepper
2009-06-29, 05:28 AM
As far as bringing physics in the game, remember two things: most games fall apart if you deviate from RAW too much and try and push into real life rules, and if the setting includes magic (as ice mephits would be) then any real life rules of physics are out the window anyway.

As for the problem in general, if he's bad enough that players are talking to you about it, it's time to put your foot down. Leave it up to him, "either start making a concerted effort to mesh with everyone, or start thinking about what else you can do during this time."

Elixia
2009-06-29, 05:39 AM
to huttj509:

thanks for the lenghy response, the 'nosy'-ness i can understand infact in small burst i quite like. theres a lot of plots twists and most of the players are really enjoying it and some of the information the player pass among one another give ME more plot hooks to use.

nysisobli
2009-06-29, 06:25 AM
I have dmed for 4 years, i have a great grasp on the rules. But im wrong sometimes, and i can admit that. I had a player like your cleric once, and i asked him to stop on multiple occasions. In the end i said, it happened because im the dm and thats how i say if f*cking happened.
He turned red was embarrassed and problem solved.

xPANCAKEx
2009-06-29, 07:02 AM
rule 0 wins here - what the DM says goes

and sometimes the rules can be bent to comply with the "rule of cool" - it shouldn't work, infact rules-wise its downright daft... but its just so cool you'll let it slide and ask them to make a couple of skill/stat checks to see if it works

if they still insist on being a rules lawyer, tell them from now on they have a minute of table time to look up any relavant rules then a further minute to present their case... if they can't do that, or fail to provide a swaying argument, then rule 0 applies and you can sort it out AFTER the session. simple. The point is to keep things flowing. I think if you mention it to them on the sly that you appreciate there help, but just want to keep the game going as everyone is having fun with it (they remember "fun", right?) then they'll have a hard time disagreeing.

finally... remember: you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Elixia
2009-06-29, 07:07 AM
rule 0 wins here - what the DM says goes

and sometimes the rules can be bent to comply with the "rule of cool" - it shouldn't work, infact rules-wise its downright daft... but its just so cool you'll let it slide and ask them to make a couple of skill/stat checks to see if it works

if they still insist on being a rules lawyer, tell them from now on they have a minute of table time to look up any relavant rules then a further minute to present their case... if they can't do that, or fail to provide a swaying argument, then rule 0 applies and you can sort it out AFTER the session. simple. The point is to keep things flowing. I think if you mention it to them on the sly that you appreciate there help, but just want to keep the game going as everyone is having fun with it (they remember "fun", right?) then they'll have a hard time disagreeing.

finally... remember: you can't please all of the people all of the time.

nice reply, i'll bear that in mind. and thanks to everyone else who replied, honestly this given me a more positive outlook on the issue and hopefully make the sessions more fun for everyone :D

and now on with wracking my brains for the next session, theres alot to do and not that much time to do it in (a week truly isn't long enough)

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-29, 07:27 AM
hey!
I'm currently running my first campaign, i've dabbled in dming once or twice but this is my first full on campaign.
anyway, the group is quite forgiving of my mistakes and such, theres two expiereince dm's in the group who give me a small jab every now and then ;) but the problem i have currently is with one of the players.

as a group there are 4 actors/storytellers, they love character development interesting plots and creative combat. As a group they mesh well. the other player, a cleric, is more of a thinker and i believe he actually has the high IQ of all of us!

One the more storytelling players, a paladin, recently joined our group, so he's a little new to the rules but has land on his feet with flare. but sometime he needs a little help with doing his powers or skill checks.

this is where one of the problems sorta starts, as soon as a 'rules debate' comes to light, the cleric will grab the rules book and the players character sheet in question and start pouring over it. sometimes this can hold up combat for 15 mins!

Fortunatly one of th older DM's, our bard, has pretty much read the books cover to cover and as of the next session it taking the books and sitting away of the cleric to avoid future 'rules debates' i'm hoping this works.

the second problem though is a little tougher to handle, heres an example;

group in a fight with ice archons in a campsite.
Paladin: i have an idea! i want to go through the tent grab the cauldron inside and throw throught the other side melting ice baddie!
DM: Nice idea! ok make a strengh check to rip through the tent!
(paldan passes the checks)
fighter: thats a cool idea, i going to help him out.
DM: Ok one of you are going to have make a check to pull the fire caulron off its stand.
fighter: i'll do it, i have higher strengh (passes check)
DM: Ok congrats on a high check but due to sudden movement some of the oil inside spilled out, you'll take some fire damage.
fighter: i'll take i'm a big man.
paladin: ok i'll rip a hole in tent where i can heard the combat and leg it through before the fighter throws it. (makes checks, and pass around the combat without provoking any atttack of opportunity)
DM: Okay make another check to throw it (fighter passes again!) great! you throw the cauldron, the oil splats all over the ice archons causing them fire damage and more from the impact of the cauldron itself!
Cleric: hmm but wouldn't the fire damage be less since oil boils and freezes and a different temperture to water, also -- (a chemistry and physics lesson ensued)

and so the debate went on, he stated that the oil would freeze faster so i ended up giving the ice archons a high DC for theyre new oil/ice armour and as the bard put it, he made a very cool scene bbecome very tidious.

other problem arise when some of the players approach me in confidence about their character backgrounds, like they want their charecter to have a secret honorable bmission that they doing or want me to introduce a love interest or something else thats personal to the character they want to development along side the campiagn. the cleric, if he catch wind of it will intergate the character, using diplomacy and insight check glarlore! and okay i will allow it to a degree but when 30 mins goes by the cleric is STILL asking questions and making checks it starting to grate on the group.

everyone at some point has asked to stop, to be quiet etc etc. but he keeps doing it.
i know its in his nature to question everything and to inform us of everything even if our eyes glaze over, but i wish he'd either agree to disagree or just drop the issue. He's really close friends with members of the group and i dont want him to feel put out since this could cause friction among them out of sessions.

how would you tackle this problem?

Coming in late so other may have said this but I would suggest

1. Talk to the player. And I would do this before the next game session in front of the group. Just say in a friendly manner that the rules lawyering is not enjoyed by others.

2. Offer him a bone. Twice per game he can ask for a play review like in sports. He has 2 minutes to make his case or look at the books. Start a timer when the review starts.

3. Take charge. When he says something like water she should rduce fire damage counter with oil and water don't mix, the damage is X and move on. In general, as long as you have a reason and you can picture in you head what would happen as if you were watcing a movie then that is as good or better a reason then any real world physics argument.

shadzar
2009-06-29, 07:36 AM
Blue bolts.

Specific rule overrides general, and DM overrides any rules books.

Duke of URL
2009-06-29, 07:40 AM
The "So You Wanna Be a DM? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474)" thread has great advice for this:


Don’t Argue About the Rules: This is quite possibly the largest mid-game time waster and bad blood generator. Unfortunately, it is also the easiest to succumb to. In a game with as many Core rules and additional source books as D&D it is inevitable that there will be disagreements about one rule or another. Frequently the disagreement will come up when the player wants to take an action, cast a spell, or use an ability and you disagree about what the effect of their action is going to be or, in some cases, if they can take the action at all. Don’t just dismiss your player out of hand but don’t get into a debate about the rules either.

Give your player 30 seconds or so to tell you why you are wrong. If they manage to change your mind in that time, rule their way. If they don’t simply say that you don’t want to get bogged down in a rules debate and that for the remainder of that day’s session the rule will work under your interpretation. There will be ample time between the end of this session and the next session for you, the player, or both to look up the right answer or if it’s particularly tricky, ask someone who you can both agree is an authority on the rules (The Simple Q&A (By RAW) thread on these boards is a good place for that). It is better to work under an incorrect interpretation of a particular rule than get bogged down arguing about it for an entire gaming session and believe me; it is possible to spend an entire session arguing about rules.

If it turns out you were right, don’t rub it in. In fact, other than to explain to your player why you were correct, don’t mention it at all. Probably everyone else in your gaming group will have forgotten about the dispute anyway. In fact, the player with whom you had the dispute may even have forgotten about it since you didn’t get into an argument over it and just moved on.
If you were wrong, fess up. Tell your group that you misinterpreted that particular rule and from now on it will work the other way. It’s just one of those cases where you screwed up, like that time you forgot that the elf automatically gets a search check for secret doors. No big deal.

The White Knight
2009-06-29, 08:20 AM
If the player knows the exact section of the exact book to find the ruling, I usually don't mind waiting a minute or so to track it down. If it's a core rule and can be searched for in the SRD, then even better. Any more time than this, and it's hardly worth it.

So long as you're a reasonable enough DM that your players can trust you to not want to screw them over, then all should be fine if you put your foot down; but a powerhungry DM who flat out refuses to budge on questionable rulings can make for a tense gaming dynamic, so tread with caution.

Random832
2009-06-29, 09:00 AM
That is easy: invoke Rule Zero and get on with playing. Long rules arguments do not belong on a game table.

If that doesn't help, play a session of Paranoia with him (a game in which discussing the rules is treason and will get the character summarily executed)

At some point, whether they're allowed to discuss it or not, there's a risk that a questionable ruling is going to leave a player feeling like he was robbed, which isn't really good for the group's dynamic.

Any rule that blurs the line between in-character and out-of-character, on the other hand (i.e. in-character consequences for out-of-character discussion) carries severe risks of destroying the ability for anyone to play their character at all. "No interaction skills against PCs" also falls into this - if someone can just decide they don't believe someone instead of doing an opposed bluff/sense motive, then the entire mechanic becomes worthless (as nothing stops them from doing this all the time) and as a DM I would be seriously tempted to start having NPCs do that too.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-29, 09:06 AM
Any rule that blurs the line between in-character and out-of-character, on the other hand (i.e. in-character consequences for out-of-character discussion) carries severe risks of destroying the ability for anyone to play their character at all. "No interaction skills against PCs" also falls into this

Not at all. It gets much more frustrating if players can force other players to do their bidding by getting lucky on a diplomacy check.

And yes, the DM is well within his rights to declare that any particular NPC is not bluffed, intimidated, soothed or whatever, regardless of how high the player rolled. For instance, because of circumstances some things just don't work, and if the player makes up something really ridiculous then people won't fall for it even on a DC 25 bluff check.

Random832
2009-06-29, 09:19 AM
Not at all. It gets much more frustrating if players can force other players to do their bidding by getting lucky on a diplomacy check.

This means dipomacy is broken. The solution is to fix diplomacy. "I decide I'm not convinced" makes about as much sense as "I decide I'm not hit."

Roderick_BR
2009-06-29, 09:22 AM
What everyone said. Just remind your friend that RPG games are not exact science.

I had a friend new to RPGs once asking if characters with too high int would suffer the problems that people with high IQ suffers in RL (like distracted teachers or professors that do lots of Freudian Slips when talking, for example).
I simply told him "no, this sort of thing is not accounted in RPGs. It would be annoying, boring, tiresome, take too time, and would disencourage people from playing, plus, there's millions of things we would need to account for characters with every kind of ability".
He also suggested that games with some sort of energy blasts should have rules for EMPs caused by such blasts, when we played a video game with giant robots. I told him that no game, show, movie, cartoon, or comic ever made energy blasts cause EMPs by itself, and we wouldn't be seeing it anytime soon.

See? Some details just shouldn't be brought up into game.
Call up your cleric friend and say "That's how we play here. Pediod."

Myself, I would stare him funny and say "oil-water temperature? uh?"
Most of my friends get the idea when I'm NOT interested in their ideas :smallamused: (plus, you could just say "he's throwing oil, not water. Your point?")

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-29, 09:25 AM
Also if the players needs to get his rules lawyering fix, tell him to post here or at enworld or the wotc forums in between game sessions. You could even join the forum debate with him :)

shadzar
2009-06-29, 09:38 AM
Yes a DM should be able to discus any rulings made with a player. The thing is while in game the DM makes all decisions final. Discussing can take place after the game or between sesions when it will not disrupt the game for other players.

Duke of URL
2009-06-29, 10:02 AM
What everyone said. Just remind your friend that RPG games are not exact science.

I had a friend new to RPGs once asking if characters with too high int would suffer the problems that people with high IQ suffers in RL (like distracted teachers or professors that do lots of Freudian Slips when talking, for example).
I simply told him "no, this sort of thing is not accounted in RPGs. It would be annoying, boring, tiresome, take too time, and would disencourage people from playing, plus, there's millions of things we would need to account for characters with every kind of ability".

Actually, that would be a solid way of playing a high-INT, low-WIS character. I've used the "absent-minded professor" as an example of that stat arrangement in the past.

Zeful
2009-06-29, 10:04 AM
everyone at some point has asked to stop, to be quiet etc etc. but he keeps doing it.
i know its in his nature to question everything and to inform us of everything even if our eyes glaze over, but i wish he'd either agree to disagree or just drop the issue. He's really close friends with members of the group and i dont want him to feel put out since this could cause friction among them out of sessions.

how would you tackle this problem?

You have asked him to stop and he won't? Ignore him. The moment he starts a spiel about "Physics", interrupt him and say no, you've ruled, your moving on. If he complains ask him to show the Physics rules for the game. He can't because they don't exist. It's your decision alone how these things work and if he doesn't like it he can leave.

I would go as far as to point out that he is a disruption to the game that will no longer be tolerated. He is now rationed 1 minute for speaking, followed by a 3 minute silence. The only time he can speak beyond that are if he's directly asked to by one of the other players or the DM. Breaking this rule can result with damage if I'm in a good mood, or a permanent reduction to his stats/loss of powers if I'm not.

Thajocoth
2009-06-29, 01:10 PM
Who ever said fantasy oil follows real-world physics? As DM, you ARE the physics. So it's like the Cleric arguing with ground after taking falling damage. It just doesn't make any sense. Fantasy physics don't match real physics for the same reason movie physics doesn't. It can make for a more interesting story. The players can be more clever/awesome. Anything that gets in the way of having fun doesn't belong in the game... Whether it's a real-world physics law, a rule from the book or even one of the players... If it's sucking the fun out of the game, it simply doesn't belong there.

Fitz10019
2009-06-29, 01:41 PM
This means dipomacy is broken. The solution is to fix diplomacy.

In my book, a good Bluff makes the person think that you actually believe what you are saying. You passed the polygraph test, but you might be loony. The Bluffed suspect no alterior motives, because they perceive sincerity. If you Bluff that the mayor is a werewolf, the Bluffed could disbelieve the 'fact' you presented, but nod knowingly, pat you on the shoulder, and ask if you'd like a cookie.

Also, a good Diplomacy check makes a person want to help you. It does not make a person want to be helped, or tell personal secrets that are not helpful to the diplomacizer. If knowing a deeply personal secret about another person is not helpful to the diplomacizer, a fully Helpful attitude will not extract the secret.

hamishspence
2009-06-29, 01:43 PM
There is the Epic diplomacy result Fanatic.

in Dungeon Crawling Fools (bonus strips) Elan says "Uh oh, I seem to have overshot Friendly and gone straight to "subservient middle management"

Riffington
2009-06-29, 01:57 PM
Actually, that would be a solid way of playing a high-INT, low-WIS character. I've used the "absent-minded professor" as an example of that stat arrangement in the past.

This, but to take it a step farther: those problems are problems of low Wis. They are not problems of high Int: statistically, low-Intelligence people are actually slightly more prone to those problems than high-Intelligence people.

Fundamentally, I agree with the posters above that real-world facts/physics should only be brought in when you happen to like it. Note, however, that it's much easier to tell a good story with bad physics than with bad psychology. If you have unrealistic falling damage rules, the game works just fine. If you have unrealistic Diplomacy or Bluff rules, suspension of disbelief is a bit harder. There's a solid reason why most DMs do fine with the falling damage rules (more or less), but refuse to play with Diplomacy as written.

One more thing: it's actually extremely hard for a player with low charisma/diplomacy to convincingly play a character with high charisma/diplomacy. There are a lot of partial solutions to this fundamental problem, but no perfect ones. Your player is making the problem even worse than it usually is: he's trying to play a very charming guy by being extra obnoxious. No ruleset can make that paradox work.

BigPapaSmurf
2009-06-29, 01:57 PM
Boiling oil would do massive extra damage to any water based creature, also oil sticks to things and would do DOT. Smack down your Cleric and throw his books in the fireplace. Also make fewer needless checks, you are bogging down the game as much as he is it seems.

only1doug
2009-06-29, 02:46 PM
I'd recommend having a private chat with the player and discussing the issue. (or just e-mail the group with the following guidelines)

As a GM I prefer a smooth flowing game to a perfect emulation of reality that is delayed with discussions of how things work.

While I'm GMing I'd prefer not to delay the game checking rules. If something seems questionable then I'll make a spot ruling which will apply for that session and double check before the next game, this will keep the game flowing and avoid delays. I'll e-mail out my official ruling before the next session.

I want to encourage out of the box thinking, so anyone can suggest a plan, I'll tell you how likely your characters THINK it is to work, and privately decide as how likely it actually IS to work, I see no need for players to offer reasons for it to fail based on real world physics.

If anyone has any suggestions to improve the game then I welcome them before and after the sessions, privately or to the group, by e-mail or in person.

mistformsquirrl
2009-06-29, 02:53 PM
The ultimate solution in a situation like this (at least from my perspective) is to tell them the following two things in order:


1) We're dealing with magic here. Magic is just that - it ignores physics and logic and does things we can only imagine in the real world. The science you are talking about simply does not apply.

2) I am the DM. I make the calls. I'm not a dictator, but for the sake of the game, sometimes I just have to say "this is how it is" and move us on.

It's always worked for me anyway <. .> I try to make sure people understand that I'm always available to be talked to, and I'm willing to discuss my decisions to a point - but ultimately, I have to be the one to make those decisions, and I may just have to say "That's that" so we can move on.

Most players tend to understand that.

Korivan
2009-06-29, 03:15 PM
Right on, talk to they guy before the next session. Personally, im a bit of a rules lawyer too, but only in the sense that i like to see consistancy...still, when the dm wants something specific done, thats it, no further argument. You can do the "its magic" route. Where everything you do that they dont know or can explain there is a spell they've never heard of or will get to see working to meet your ends. Or my personal favorite, "cause i said so". Your the dm man, we've all been new dms, and we all make mistakes. Patient players understand and at times can help by makeing suggestions. Heres something the guy who got me started did. When arguing gets out of hand, he holds up his hands, counts off 6 seconds, if you didnt do something by then, your character was paralized by indecision, or whatever. Usually this is accompanyed by the "cause i said so" policy, but hey, if you need to do that so they can get more playtime in, then so be it.

d13
2009-06-29, 03:38 PM
Don't know if anybody said this before, but you can always tell him the magic four words...

"Shut the fcuk up"

Don't forget to smile xD.


Remember, you are the DM, you win at EVERY rule-argument. And if it is a cool way to do something, there are no rules regarding that.