Should players aggressively 'fact check' their DMs?

Don't be ridiculous.

You don't want me start "fact checking" your character sheet.

You really don't.

I think players should complain when they feel they're being treated unfairly- I don't mean facing difficult challenges, I mean that the GM isn't using the rules in a consistent way that applies to everyone.
If I had to be perfectly honest, though, I'd guess that you're looking for an opportunity for the internet to back you up on your beef with the GM.
So

>question lore usage

I hate this more than I hate life.

The Finnish weeb that judges you for not having the correct hierarchy and mannerisms for your shogunate rulers.

The Swedish armchair general that keeps licking Americas army and refuses to play until you give "the gun" a caliber and gets sulky and moany when his "gun knowledge" doesn't get to use. Example; "This gun is usually not fitted with X, unless Y, so that means that Z IS Y!!!" If I don't come up with something out of my ass he corrects me and almost cries if I don't give him spotlight.

Rules - always. GM can override existing rule with houserule but should not be left with false assumption what rules actually say as written (common offender being critting / crit failing skill checks).

Lore - exceptionally. Only when playing in established setting and even then only when both player and character has reasonable justification doe know the facts. Otherwise it can be interpreted as metagaming.

Also I would say this should be done actively, but not quite aggressively. Aggressive rule checking would be more akin to pic related.

How do you deal with this kinda shit without coming across as a stuck up cunt? I'm thinking about DMing for some friends and it'd be my firstish time, but one of them is kinda like this, he loves to spew general shit at any chance he gets, even if he's wrong, and I fear he would become annoying excessively trying to question or correct me.

In a word, no. You absolutely SHOULD NOT disrupt the session with that shit unless it's life or death question. If you have problems with the GM's ruling, you should take it up after the session or sometime before the next one.

Don't let him bring things to a dead halt.
This may mean putting him off for a time somehow. You may need to ignore him at times.

>pointing out questionable rule usage

Only if you do it in a polite and reasonable way, bringing it up at moments where it's either crucial, or else waiting for a moment where you're less likely to piss off your whole gaming group. You have a lot of those moments outside the game session.

There's a world of difference between interrupting your GM mid-sentence to shout that he's doing things wrong, and waiting for a lull so you can gently inquire about why he chose to do something in a way you did not expect.

>lore
I think that since GMs have considerable freedom with lore. The farthest a player should go mid-session is asking to clarify the lore he is using, at least to the extent that your characters would be aware of the difference. If the difference is not immediately vital to the action at hand, you should make a note of it and wait until after the session to bring it up.

For instance, interrupting the action to say "Tempus Thales would never say that!" is likely to just annoy people. Waiting for the end of the session and asking something like "Your version of Tempus Thales seems to be acting much differently that what I would expect from the canon. Are there any other important differences I should expect from this character?" is far less abrasive and more likely to start a productive conversation instead of a shouting match.

no. they should not.
but they're gonna do it anyway, so learn to roll with the punches.

yes, I get it, you know more about whatever that is than I do. Asking me for a specific like a timetable of deliveries, then arguing that's not realistic when I give you a set schedule is infuriating.
If I say the vault gets an armored transport pickup once a month, don't immediately start at me with "well, I used to work at a similar place, and we had to have 2 or 3 times weekly pickups."

But I'm gonna roll with it, because you aren't gonna STOP doing that.

Well, if it's a narrative heavy game then rules are just a guideline anyway.

But if it's something more rule heavy and combat oriented then it absolutely can be a life or death question at any point. Extra d6 hp lost early in the session because DM calculated fall damage incorrectly can be the HP making the difference between life or death of the character several hours later.

No.

What the DM says goes, unless you think he's mistaken, or he asks your opinion. Dont like it? Thats totally fair and a matter of opinion, but your only recourse is to either bring it up outside of the game, or git out.

fpbp

If an extra d6 points of damage taken outside combat becomes a life-or-death question, then you're pretty poorly prepared for adventure.

Not aggressively, but if he declares something blatantly against the rules which he has not overruled with a houserule then it can be questioned.

Put as respectful questions between sessions, especially about rules, it's fine. Otherwise

>Your version of Tempus Thales seems to be acting much differently that what I would expect

I used to speak in this way to my DM all the time. It came off as passive aggressive and made him not want to DM anymore.

>aggressively
Well, no, obviously. If something seems bullshit it could be nice to point out at an opportune time, though.

Based on the language, I'd guess that he's looking for an opportunity for the internet to back him up on his beef with his players.

... 15 exactly. Why?

On rules that are explicitly NOT house rules or new rules, the answer is a careful yes.

Ideally the players know the rules as well as the GM does, and if the GM is plain wrong about how something works, help them out and find the correct way to do it.

The key word here is *help*, for everyone at the table. If the GM is missing something important, the game is better with that important thing, so make sure it's included. If you're in it solely to win an argument, shut up, the other players are bored at best and more likely tired of your shit.

My character sheet is perfectly in order. All those 18s are what I rolled for point buy.

>lore usage

No

>rule usage

Only if mis-usage/mis-reading of the rules is going to result in a PC death. Other than that, quietly make a note of it and talk to him about it after the game.

Only time I've ever held up the game over rules usage was when the DM misunderstood the Run Through feat in Pathfinder, and thought it meant he could charge someone, run past them to knock them over, stop, turn around, then attack the prone person while still benefiting from charge bonuses(instead of just knocking over people between you and your charge target).

Roleplay it. If he feels the rules are unfair or improperly applied, he can make his case before the gods. If he can convince them, good, if he can't, he'll be punished with a curse for wasting their time. They become more severe and longer-lasting the more he annoys them.

Players shouldn't "aggressively" do anything. You can be assertive about what you think is right but in the end if you don't like how the game is going, talk it out or leave.

Why does this thread keep happening? Why do I keep getting baited? Find out next episode.

no, DMs word is law. doing this is the fastest way to get killed or just make your DM quit

>just make your DM quit

>Implying that this isn't a desired goal if the DM can't follow the written rules or be consistent with the published lore
>If you want shitty homebrew, play shitty homebrew. Don't fuck up a perfectly good game. The GM only has the powers the players let him have, and imposing rules on the group isn't one of them.

>perfectly good
>published lore

Pick one.

Usually, no, they shouldn't because Rule0 and it'll cause more shit than it'll bury.

However, if the GM is flagrantly flaunting the lore whether to hinder the party or just plain push a narrative that doesn't add up then in that situation it's reasonable for the players to complain a bit.

Say, playing Rogue Trader and a Tau comes along being all buddy-buddy with the party, that's cool, that fits the lore for the Tau S.O.P., if the Tau then turns out to be a Genestealer progenitor who;s ship is overrun with a Tau Stealer cult, again A-OK, a bit different but OK, if the Genestealers then get all buddy-buddy with the party (and not in the rapey way) well at that point the players have every right to question the GM.

I mean, if I know the rules better then them then it's passive really. If it's not a broken system, the rules are there to keep the balance and do so by working as intended. So if he gets it wrong, I tell em after the encounter/ a lull in the game that the specific thing actually works like this. Then if he wants confirmation I find the exact passage for him, and like adults, we normally agree to abide by the rule in our non-broken system.

>Only an autistic person would answer "yes".
>Rule 0, bitches.
Spoken like a true autist. Rule 0 is that the main point of the game is to have fun for all. Though the Golden Rule should be followed under a sensible and knowledgeable DM, otherwise it's easily up for abuse and that happens often enough.

>imposing rules on the group isn't one of them.

That is literally the GM's job you twat.

>impliying that a work made by strangers and destined to be read by a gigantic group of strangers is gonna be better for you and your group than the version modified by your friend who knows you and your respective tastes

Changing shit is what the DM is supposed to do. If he's shit at his job, that's an entirely different issue.

Well, right, but any reasonable DM would've not picked that game for that story to begin with. Circunstances may force collaboration with for example tau or eldar, but you don't really prepare a 40k with friendly aliens in mind.

You don't sound very aggressive to me.

While the Imperium in general is totally hostile to aliens, rogue traders are allowed to trade with them, and they're given lots of leeway in general as well.

Only if i feel he's trying to fuck the group because he's taken issue with something we did or said.

otherwise I just roll with it

>fact check
Any asshole that reminds me of the human existence I'm desperately trying to escape from with phrases like this are getting an instead boot. Fuck em,' get the hell out of my game.

>"Penguin Chirp, Penguin Squawk, and Penguin Tweet are walking through the Arcti-"
>"Uh... Chirp, penguins don't walk, they waddle."
>"Penguin Chirp, Penguin Squawk, and Penguin Tweet are WADDLING through the Arctic..."
>"Chirp, penguins live in Antarctica."
>"Penguin Chirp, Penguin Squawk, and Penguin Tweet are WADDLING through ANTARCTICA..."

>instead
instant* but you get the fucking point.

Aggresively? no

>"It's been modified to shoot X instead of Y. No, you don't know why anyone would do such a thing. Move along."

Autism speaks.

Yes. We've had enough of "experts". Don't trust 'em.