I have also learned to recognize the "fishing" method that many commonly use, where they ask an innocuous sounding question, followed by another, followed by another. Or when they use the "obtuse" method of "misunderstanding" something in their favor.
Then I just call shenanigans, make a ruling to stop the impending argument, and move the game along.
Admittedly, sometimes I do check rules, but I make a point of putting marks in my books for common rules pinch points of discussion.
How do you censure yourself when you start being one?
Bizarrely, the current DM I play with likes to get his rules exact. Once he figured out that I and another player knew them well, he kept asking us to give him rulings. We always wind up in a book race to see who gets to the page first - mainly to get back to playing. The way I censure myself aside from this is by biting my tongue. If I don't have to comment on a rule, if it won't substantially affect play, I keep my
( ... )
The GM has to put his foot down and squelch that shit from the git-go. I never put up with it myself when I was running games, but I know some people do and you're right it just ruins it for everyone.
I was very lucky with my gaming group in Mississippi. We all got along and were more interested in having a fun time.
We always had a rule in our games "you can't go back in time." In other words if we found out we did accidentally mess up a rule, we couldn't go back and replay the incident it may have affected. But we did make certain we were aware of it for the future.
This is a rule that I always enforce. It drives me crazy if a GM doesn't. I've been in pretty good groups with this one, but there has been a couple of times. One was the rule reader's group, going back and fixing things was big with them.
To start with, I use DM's privilege: what the DM says, goes. The DM makes the rules. If in doubt, I'll say "This is the way I read the rules", but I do allow brief discussion of the point if there's a dispute.
As a player who is a DM himself, I try to respect the DM's rulings, as much as I might not like them.
>If in doubt, I'll say "This is the way I read the rules", but I do allow brief discussion of the point if there's a dispute.<
I agree, being a tyrant GM is as bad or worse than being a vacillating one. The goal has to be fun, tyrants just aren't any fun.
This one comes up more in what I will call the GM and a player's philosophy of the game. For example; I take a certain view on character alignment that differs greatly with one of my current players, but I give him credit for not bringing up during game play. We have had discussions about and we have agreed to disagree.
For the record my view on D&D's alignment system would be disputed by many D&D purists.
I'll need to think on this and put it in a post. Boiled down, in the beginning of a game I don't worry too much about a PC's alignment. I see it more as a goal, rather then any set rule. To me a player's actions determine their alignment. I probably wouldn't define a character's alignment until the 3rd level and even then it would be plastic.
I also think that a NPC or PC's alignment is better determined by how they view themselves, as well as how others see them. (This is getting long.) I probably would junk it all together, but its integral to the D&D system. Needless to say, I have my own house rules that modify alignment.
The player in my game (who sees it different) believes, a good religion is good religion, it can't in anyway be evil (the same goes for characters). I pointed out that the Catholic Church carried out the Crusades with the best of "good" intentions, but many of their actions would be considered evil.
In effect, I like my games to have more nuance than "pure" D&D allows for. And I run my games that way.
Sounds a bit more like metagaming than lawyering, but metagamers are another problem in themselves (if lawyers should be killed, metagamers should get tarred and feathered). I haven't noticed you doing it (in fact, I've seen you bite your tongue when you and Sam wanted me to ask a vital question, last session - I actually had fun torturing you both. Jason, he just can't help himself.
You should try Gming Robert's game some night. I think you would do great. You could write a short one-shot, I'm sure you're full of ideas. It will also give you another perspective of the game and gaming.
I've only ever had this issue once in my twenty odd years of gaming. The guy (who I no longer know) was one of those rules lawyers to whom the rulebook is set in stone. Completely immovable on things. I'm the opposite. The rules are there but get broken or twisted as and when the game needs them to.
Eventually it got to a point where he was told by the rest of the table that if he didn't curb his rules lawyering and power gaming that they didn't want him anymore.
I favor human sacrifice for rule-lawyers that double as power gamers. ;)
I had dinner last night with the Robert and Connie Thomson, before playtesting their game. We talked a lot about the plasticity of Pathfinder and old D&D, as opposed to the new 4e D&D. I found that 4e must be played as is, if you cut anything you lose an essential component to the game (everything is so interconnected). I hated that part about it. I had to mold my game to it instead of the other way around. Pathfinder is much better for new concepts. In my Lustra/Pathfinder game I've thrown out most all of the Arcane Magic rules and replaced them with my own system. (We have been playtesting for a couple months and it's testing good at lower levels.)
Comments 12
I start by knowing the rules as well as I can.
I have also learned to recognize the "fishing" method that many commonly use, where they ask an innocuous sounding question, followed by another, followed by another. Or when they use the "obtuse" method of "misunderstanding" something in their favor.
Then I just call shenanigans, make a ruling to stop the impending argument, and move the game along.
Admittedly, sometimes I do check rules, but I make a point of putting marks in my books for common rules pinch points of discussion.
How do you censure yourself when you start being one?
Bizarrely, the current DM I play with likes to get his rules exact. Once he figured out that I and another player knew them well, he kept asking us to give him rulings. We always wind up in a book race to see who gets to the page first - mainly to get back to playing. The way I censure myself aside from this is by biting my tongue. If I don't have to comment on a rule, if it won't substantially affect play, I keep my ( ... )
Reply
I do this as well, it also helps me identify "my" rule book at the end of the night.
As for players that game the system that's another post, but I've found them relatively easy to handle. They are pretty transparent.
Reply
I was very lucky with my gaming group in Mississippi. We all got along and were more interested in having a fun time.
We always had a rule in our games "you can't go back in time." In other words if we found out we did accidentally mess up a rule, we couldn't go back and replay the incident it may have affected. But we did make certain we were aware of it for the future.
Reply
This is a rule that I always enforce. It drives me crazy if a GM doesn't. I've been in pretty good groups with this one, but there has been a couple of times. One was the rule reader's group, going back and fixing things was big with them.
Reply
As a player who is a DM himself, I try to respect the DM's rulings, as much as I might not like them.
Reply
I agree, being a tyrant GM is as bad or worse than being a vacillating one. The goal has to be fun, tyrants just aren't any fun.
This one comes up more in what I will call the GM and a player's philosophy of the game. For example; I take a certain view on character alignment that differs greatly with one of my current players, but I give him credit for not bringing up during game play. We have had discussions about and we have agreed to disagree.
For the record my view on D&D's alignment system would be disputed by many D&D purists.
Reply
Reply
I also think that a NPC or PC's alignment is better determined by how they view themselves, as well as how others see them. (This is getting long.) I probably would junk it all together, but its integral to the D&D system. Needless to say, I have my own house rules that modify alignment.
The player in my game (who sees it different) believes, a good religion is good religion, it can't in anyway be evil (the same goes for characters). I pointed out that the Catholic Church carried out the Crusades with the best of "good" intentions, but many of their actions would be considered evil.
In effect, I like my games to have more nuance than "pure" D&D allows for. And I run my games that way.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
You should try Gming Robert's game some night. I think you would do great. You could write a short one-shot, I'm sure you're full of ideas. It will also give you another perspective of the game and gaming.
Reply
Eventually it got to a point where he was told by the rest of the table that if he didn't curb his rules lawyering and power gaming that they didn't want him anymore.
Reply
I had dinner last night with the Robert and Connie Thomson, before playtesting their game. We talked a lot about the plasticity of Pathfinder and old D&D, as opposed to the new 4e D&D. I found that 4e must be played as is, if you cut anything you lose an essential component to the game (everything is so interconnected). I hated that part about it. I had to mold my game to it instead of the other way around. Pathfinder is much better for new concepts. In my Lustra/Pathfinder game I've thrown out most all of the Arcane Magic rules and replaced them with my own system. (We have been playtesting for a couple months and it's testing good at lower levels.)
Reply
Leave a comment