Is anyone else sick of being called a rules lawyer when they just want the game played properly or to not be gimped because the other players don't understand the rules.
I have to re-explain how opportunity attacks and sneak attack works in 5e every fucking session. It's so irritating to see them try to raise a fucking brow whenever I use sneak attack more than once a fight or whatever.
Anyone else have anything like this to deal with?
No, we're sick of your rules-lawyering ruining a perfectly good game of imagination.
Fuck off and learn the rules instead of asking what dice a d12 is again
Basically this. Every time a GM starts assumeing every idea I have is munchkin based power gaming I die a little inside.
Yeah. My DM thought I was being cheesy for suggesting playing a fucking PaladinX/Warlock2. I was hard pressed to not roll my eyes.
>Every time a GM starts assuming every idea I have is munchkin based power gaming I die a little inside
This sentence was like the first half of my RP gaming career.
>you did something other than attack the monster?
>you talked to the monster? fucking munchkin trying to get free XP and treasure
>you snuck past the monster? stupid powergame bullshit, just play the game
>you charged the monster for a plus to hit and minus to AC? UGH literally a free buff
>you attacked the monster with its weakness? Why can't you just hit it with your sword and roleplay?
>you built a character with a nonzero tohit bonus? Fuck off mate
>you made a character with a balanced array of abilities? Powergaming horseshit is what that is
>multiclassing? Absolutely unacceptable murderhobo BS
>I die a little inside.
Could you please die a lot inside? Like, 100% dead?
All players have to be on the same level, and if rules are being used wrong or cited incorrectly you should say something if it upsets you. If you're DM tells you to shut up and calls you a rules lawyer, find a new group because those shits don't want to compromise, and are dismissing your issues without hearing them out.
I'd rather follow the rule, and as both a player and a GM I'd rather people mentioned the rules if we were doing shit wrong. Honestly the shit that gets me, when I'm GMing, is when a player snidely goes "This was against the rules!" after the game and tries to score some points or some bullshit. Okay? Who gives a fuck? We'll do it right next time. Woop-tee-fucking-do.
Only an idiot calls it rules lawyering if you're just clarifying rules or saying that yes, you are in fact able to do something according to the rules. A rules lawyer is a robot who can only operate according to RAW when it's clearly obvious the GM does not intend to follow RAW in a scenario.
Speaking of which, call your group idiots.
I find that most of the time when people call someone else a rules lawyer at the table, it's because they're being a pedantic dick. OP should maybe consider how he's presenting himself when he does this stuff, and whether it might be better to phrase it in a more polite and helpful way, or bring it up casually after the game instead of stopping the session to argue about the right way to do things.
Because that's what most people mean when they say "rules lawyers."
okay but in this scenario it's clearly because the group is calling bullshit on him when he's following the rules as they are in the game.
Yeah, that's OP's viewpoint, and maybe it's right. The players aren't here to tell their side of things, however, and we should all know better than to trust an OP to never be wrong or misleading.
>DM outright accuses me of rules lawyering for my own gain should I bring up a rule that would benefit me at the time
>Asks me why I didn't mention this earlier
>It's a situation that didn't occur before or I didn't know about the ruling/think to check the ruling before
And
>Whenever I ask for rules clarification on something mid-session the dm and another player get pissy and insist that I should ask AFTER the sessions, instead of "bogging down the game" with these easily solved three second questions that simply require a dm ruling on the matter
Sometimes I fucking hate these kikes
No, fuck off. Quit arguing semantics with the fucking DM at the table and ruining the entire party's fun. I'd like to be able to make it through the combat in less than the hour it takes for you to argue why you're allowed to hit one more time in combat.
This.
And this.
If you stop the game to argue a rules quibble with the GM and it is NOT a life/death, make or break scenario, it is not more important than the game running smoothly for the table.
If OP is correct, than he should be able to open the rulebook, point to the thing he is talking about, and it should be done. If it is not, then he is relying on fuzzy logic and personal interpretation (that coincidentally entirely benefits himself, which is a massive red flag for a GM) that may not be how it's supposed to be.
The first you have done repeatedly enough to be known to do so.
The second, the GM is correct, you should not stop the game for the GROUP in a clearly self serving situation.
>playing a game of commander with a few friends
>opponent plays pic related
>Someone asks how it works
>I say "Basically, when you draw for turn, instead look at the top 3 and take one, and then you can pay 4 for each extra card you want, then put the rest back."
>realize a few turns later that opponent has been playing it as "Draw 3, put 2 cards from hand back" which is a pretty strong advantage for those unfamiliar with mtg
>point it out and tell him to play his cards correctly
>Calls me a rules lawyer and says "Some of us play this game for FUN."
>Store owner is casual chick, takes his side, "It doesn't matter, it's a casual format"
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE MAGIC ISN'T A FREEFORM CARD GAME THE CARDS HAVE TEXT FOR A REASON
Crushed the guy in the game though.
Fuck God yes OP.
Reason I stick to the rules is because I'm tired of them CHANGING all the fucking time due to shiiiiit DMs.
>AoOs work like this
>Next week they work like this
>Next they work like this
OK! The book says this! You can interrupt that perhaps two ways, but pick ONE!
>Stop being such a rule lawyer.
There is a HUGE difference between intentionally choosing (and telling your players) that you are houseruling something.
and
deciding on the spot the rules work like XYZ because that's how you've imagined this encounter going...
Anti-rule lawyers can shove it. If you want to change as rule from the book? That's fine, try to mention it ahead of time, but most importantly stick to the change, and don't freak out when your players bring it up!
>There is a HUGE difference between intentionally choosing (and telling your players) that you are houseruling something.
>and
>deciding on the spot the rules work like XYZ because that's how you've imagined this encounter going...
This.
So how did you try to justify your blatant munchkinry in character?
He can't, unless he was playing 5e.
You can't play that combination in 3.pf due to alignment clauses.
I ask questions when negative to me as much as i do when benefitial. Don't act like you know shit when you don't, fuckwit.
As for the second, they're questions of immediate importance that would impact the events of the session, and are almost always easy to answer if the dm gives a fucking answer instead of debating back and forth with himself over the pros, cons, and sensibility of the ruling. It's not my fault if he's an indecisive dipshit.
>I ask questions when negative to me as much as i do when benefitial
I don't believe that for a second, because if you did, you wouldn't be called a rules lawyer.
>they're questions of immediate importance that would impact the events of the session
To YOU, and clearly not to the rest of the group, which is why you are called a rules lawyer.
I keep it stock that any rules questions be saved until after the game, because yes, I know what I am trying to do, and no, your sperg bullshit is not more important than the group's fun time.
I had the opposite of this happen to me playing MTG. Casual players rules lawyering me on shit they knew nothing about.
Essentially I tapped an Elf to untap one of my lands and they used a tapper to tap the Elf and claimed I couldn't now use the ability because they didn't understand how the stack worked.
To compound things fucking 6 people at the club all mob disagreed with me, this was before I could just use my smartphone to look it up . It didn't matter in the grand scheme of things and I left it but it pissed me off. If you're going to rules lawyer at least learn the rules.
For the first, it doesn't matter what you believe. Facts are facts. Plenty of people, such as yourself, are retarded when it comes to certain things. My DM happens to be one of those people who Gets minorly upset when the players are in an advantageous situation in his planned scenarios
For the second. Only the dm and one player (who is literally, medically autistic) object to it, the rest are perfectly fine with it and have shown interest in getting many of the rules/rulings ive brought up clarified. Im not even the only one who tries to get the dm to make quick rulings.
Basically, stop being a shithead who accuses people of rules lawyering and trying to pull fast ones on the dm. A comprehensive list of rulings can both benefit and harm the players when used effectively. For fuck's sake, one of the rules I was called a rules lawyer on was regarding initiative checks and how they get affected by effects like exhaustion and fear, which the players are on the recieving end of far more than enemies.
>Player with intensely flakey behavior that I've known for years
>Swell dude, decent roleplayer, but multitasks constantly so his attention is always divided
>Sometimes ditches last minute because he wanted to do something else, like play a videogame that he can play at any time
>I have to constantly remind him that its his turn or hound him for confirmation on what day this week he's good to have a session on
>He made a habit of calling me "the neediest rules lawyer" because I had to babysit him since i was the only one with a line of communiation to him
I like him as a friend, but never fucking again. I'm glad he dropped out.
This.
Rules are important as they provide a consistent framework for the players to understand how the world works and for the GM to be able to make sense of the players action within the world.
This *enables* roleplaying as if you don't understand the consequences behind your choices , the risks and rewards, you can't make a choice with any meaning and if you can't do that you can't roleplay in any real sense.
Obviously there's cases of people trying to abuse rules for mechanical advantage , people will forget things and get things wrong and rules discussions shouldn't overtake a session but sometimes taking a few minutes to check something is important. I mean if your character dies because of a bad ruling are you going to be happy ?
If the group and DM are ignoring rules arbitrarily without being clear then overall it is a detriment to the entire roleplaying experience.
That's not what rules lawyering is
So, actual lawyer here.
My understanding of rules lawyering is that it's when someone reads a rule and tries to twist or distort it to fit some overpowered idea they came up with, or ignores an obvious typo or mistake in order to eke out more power or a completely broken combo.
Locate City Bomb is rules lawyering.
Explaining how an AoO works, or that concentration checks are a thing, is not.
We started at level 3. I had it be an ex-pirate GoO warlock that soon decided to not honor his debt and use his abilities against his patron. It isn't hard.
I'm aware. Half the point of this post is that they call me a rules lawyer when I'm just reminding them how AoOs work and that the fighter or whatever should get one.
It's not even just the matter of an extra attack, it's things like them not fucking realizing that you don't get sneak attack just once at the beginning of combat, you get it for other reasons.
the thing you have to realize is that for like half the groups out there, d&d isn't so much a game with existent rules as it is a half-remembered thing someone taught them how to play years ago