How the fuck do you stop players from fucking rules lawyering? It's fucking annoying.
I literally blew two hours of a session because my faggot player thought that he could flank a person in 5e because there was a pc behind him. Said PC was currently paralyzed by a hold person spell, and as the DM, I ruled that no, the player could not in any way shape or form consider that a "flanking" action.
Two hours. What the fuck do you do?
>>47878509
A. Leave the game
B. Kick said player from game
C. Whine about it on /tg/
TakeyourpickOP
>>47878509
>What the fuck do you do?
If your player keeps arguing after you've made your ruling, say something like "Regardless of the actual merit of your argument, I'm making a judgment call on the basis of my role as arbiter of the rules. I want to keep to keep the game rolling and not get bogged down in a debate over the minutiae of the rules, so please set your objections aside for now. You can talk to me after the game is over if you want to challenge this ruling going forward, but this one needs to stand so we can make progress today."
If there is more argument, then something like this might be appropriate: "As GM, it's my job to make decisions like this so please don't turn this into a fight. If you have overall objections to my performance as GM, we can discuss that after the game is over, but in agreeing to play a game with me as GM, you've agreed to my authority over the game. I'm the guy you chose to put in charge. So please let me do my job."
And if there is still argument: "Stop. I've made my ruling. You are wasting everybody's time and turning what should be a fun game into a heated argument. Nobody wins. I'm sorry you think that I am misapplying the rules, but that's my mistake to make. And ultimately, as per rule zero, my authority supersedes that of the rulebook. So not only am I the one tasked with rendering judgment in cases of dispute, but I am also authorized to overturn existing rules as I deem fit. Play the game or don't play the game, but I've made my final decision on the matter at hand."
And if they still object: "I'm through discussing this. Accept my ruling and play, or walk away from the table. Those are your only options."
Could always beat the fuck at his own game by being up to date with rules.
>>47878509
Tell them to shut the fuck up. The GM made a ruling, and no amount of bitching is going to change it.
I usually just say either "I'm reasonably sure this is how it works," or "honestly I'm not sure how this works" and then add on "but I don't want to waste two hours figuring it out. We're going to do it [this way] this time and you're welcome to stay after the session so we can figure it out for next time."
I look at it this way: the rules lawyer can help me get a better handle on the rules but I need to manage him so that he doesn't monopolize the session in the same way you don't want the drama major in the group to always steal the spotlight. It's just like managing a team of computer programmers that try to get deep into the weeds in a short meeting. You politely but firmly ask them to take it offline (as the buzzword goes) and then deal with their concerns later.
>>47878509
Read and learn the rules so you don't have to have them pointed out to you by your players?
'But that book be big Yo!' You moan.
'Then don't Gm.' I say.
>>47880529
The specific example wouldn't have been in the book though. DM made the correct decision (Paralysed people can't assist in a flank) and their player was being a cunt.
>>47878509
Aside from the fact that it makes no logical sense to flank using a cripple, 5e flanking rules are also optional, which makes it doubly retarded.
>>47880529
I'm pretty sure he ruled in accordance with the game rules. I'd be very surprised if anyone found a reference that contracted him.
What's a 'flanking' attack in 5e?
A rogue sneak attack?
>>47880529
The DM does know the rules. What was in dispute was whether a paralyzed PC can be used to gain a flanking bonus. The DM ruled "no", presumably on the grounds of plain common sense, i.e enemies won't consider a paralyzed opponent to be a threat and will not be distracted by it.
DMs are well within their rights to make this kind of ruling as per the Golden Rule.
Don't like the Golden Rule? Tough. And don't waste our time with any straw-man slippery slope bullshit about "hurr if u won't play by any of teh rules den why r u using teh book at al? xD".
>>47880529
spotted the Pathfinder fag.
>>47878509
>i argued about an optional rule with my player for 2 hours
a lot of that is your fault. you really don't have to put up with it
just say "i'm the gm, everyone just wants to play, we're blowing right through this and i'm making the call"
>>47878509
"this is how I'm going to run it. If you have a problem with how I DM or a ruling I make, you can bring it up after. If you can't do that and continue to interrupt the game, then you wont play."
How is this hard?
>>47881425
Is there a reason Pathfinder gets so much shit?
It's my favorite system and I'm of the mind the the DM supersedes the rules.
>>47881870
Pathfinder is bad because it requires a LOT of DM 'superseding' to work well.
>>47878586
he already did
>>47879233
or my favorite "You don't like my rules? Don't play in my fucking game. Your call."
It works no matter what they decide
>>47881899
My group doesn't really run that problem, we just make a decision based on what makes the most sense.
If the rules get in the way of roleplay and having fun fuck 'em
>>47881986
>If the rules get in the way of roleplaying and fun
Hence why people dislike pathfinder. If you're throwing out half the rules to have a good time, then why use the system?
>>47881870
>Is there a reason Pathfinder gets so much shit?
Aside from the issues of over-complexity and poor balance? The encyclopedic approach of 3e, where it attempts to have a formula or rule for everything, influenced a change in the perspective of D&D's players. Unlike the old days, when the DM's word was law, and it was expected that any DM worth his salt would tweak and change the rules, the rulebook became the supreme authority, with the DM relegated to the role of a referee or arbiter. The book was in charge and his job was to merely to carry out its law. And because of this, players who thought they saw the DM making errors interpreting the rules felt free to challenge him, because the rules in the book were what was important.
>>47882040
For the other half of the rules?
>>47882057
This.
This here is the issue I have with the 3e D&D generation.
>>47878509
In my last group, there was a player who argued that he should be able to make a reflex save while being pinned by a Glabrezu in a Prismatic Wall.
>>47881958
Yeah, but you don't want to get there too quickly because it's confrontational. Granted, they're being an ass by continually arguing, but as GM, you want to be more constructive.
>>47882076
And some people don't find it fun to dig through an entire book just to find the stuff they actually want to use. Instead, they can spend that time learning something that doesn't require tearing out pages.
>>47882040
Because everything is so defined and it works on a unified system. Sometimes you trim the fat and play house rues, sometimes you keep all the rules in.
The system gives you a lot of freedom to mess around with it and it's easy to say "we're playing without X this time around guys" than it is to go into AD&D and explain all the extra rules you're putting in and why the PHB is a waste of money because you've changed everything.
>>47882057
That's a fair criticism, I feel that someone who doesn't just want to play a power fantasy would acknowledge that the rules are just a guideline and that the DM has final say.
>>47881870
>>47881986
>BLT is my favorite food
>My chef prepares it without bread or bacon, and with extra lettuce, just how I like it.
If you make a salad out of a sandwich, fine, but you could have just ordered a better salad.
>>47882194
>Because everything is so defined and it works on a unified system
Better to build a house on stone than sand.
>>47882226
>>47882253
It's easier to teach one system that can be modified than to use a bunch of different systems.
People like playing what they're comfortable with.
>>47882057
Does Pathfinder at least have a rules-lite version?
>>47882194
The unified d20 mechanic was a definite step forward. It streamlines and simplifies everything. It's just that they botched the execution, screwing up the math and piling too much bullshit on top of the unified mechanic. AD&D is cluttered and sloppy, and yet somehow 3e managed to be much more complicated and convoluted despite its simpler foundation.
>>47882179
So your argument, in its entirety, is that it is easier to read 100% of something then it is to read 50% due to the fact that it requires the laborious task of ignoring the other 50?
>>47882279
>It's easier to teach one system that can be modified than to use a bunch of different systems.
but m-muh flavourGURPS
>>47882370
Yeah, I've considered it. But my group all know Pathfinder inside out at this point that they would get shitty if I wanted to shift.
Pathfinder hasn't gotten in the way of fun yet though, so I have no complaints.
>>47882332
Check out Castles & Crusades if you want a more streamlined system that uses the unified d20 mechanic. (Just remember to fix saving throws by adding only half a caster's level to his spell challenge score, or you'll still end up with runaway caster power.) It's essentially a streamlined and liberally-modified AD&D that uses the d20 mechanic. Of course, in the tradition of old school D&D, there isn't a lot of mechanical character customization (with feats and skills not directly granted by your class). That sort of thing was typically improvised by your DM in the old days: "Your character background had you growing up in the desert, so I'm going to let you take the better of two rolls to find an oasis." That sort of thing. But it might feel sparse to newer players used to character builds. In that case, it might not be a bad idea to look into 5e, which is light compared to Pathfinder, but relatively involved compared to old school D&D.
>>47879233
Came here to post this.
>>47882279
>It's easier to teach one system that can be modified than to use a bunch of different systems.
But 3e's system, and therefore Pathfinder's, is pretty bad at that. It's specifically targeted a high-magic, combat-focused dungeon crawling and is pretty bad for anything else. Hell, it even has some major issues when it's doing exactly what it's supposed to.
Savage Worlds, BRP or even GURPS (which I'm not a big fan of) are all designed to flexible enough to apply to different settings. They're swiss army knives. Pathfinder is a hammer, and far too many people insist on trying to use it to open wine bottles, whittle sticks, or whatever-the-fuck else swiss army knives do.
>>47882574
The only problem I have is the garbage army rules. Nothing else poses much trouble at all.
>>47878509
Be willing to go "I'm making a ruling and that's what we're going with now, but we'll take a look at what the book says after the game."
Also, actually make an effort to familiarize yourself with the rules when you GM.
>>47882699
Ramping hit points and the confined way the skill system works is problematic for games where that sort of thing is out of place. Having armor make you harder to hit works poorly in futuristic games. Classes, themselves, aren't ideal for every setting. In comparison, something more skill-based, like BRP, tends to be more flexible. Also, there's the matter of Pathfinder's complexity, which makes it more niche. And hell, D&D has always been a niche game. Granted, it's a popular niche, but it's really poorly designed if you stray too far from its exploration- and combat-based design.
How much experience do you have with other games? Because a lot of people who think 3.PF is fine for a variety of settings are like people who have only jacked off with their left hand and have no idea what they're missing. And yeah, if you break your right hand, you can get the job done with your left, but it's definitely a shittier option.
>>47882932
I haven't played too much else. Mutants and Masterminds and AD&D are the only other systems I've really played. I'm not fond of sci fi or future settings in general though.
>>47882366
No. Its easier to read 200 pages of rules than to read 400 and decide that you're only going to use 200 of those 400.
Unless you have some magical way to know what rules you want without reading them
>>47878509
Know the rules better than them
>>47878509
Duh, flanking depends on threatening squares, and a paralyzed person does not threaten squares.
Know the rules, maybe? Or at least rule 0 - rules discussions wait until after the session and in the meantime DM rules all.
>>47880529
As if being the GM is a massive privilege. If you're not comfortable with the way a GM moderates, take it up with him after the session and if the two of you can't find a compromise, find a different group. The middle of combat isn't the right time to second-guess the GM's rulings just because you're pushing the envelope on both RAW and common sense with your shenanigans.
>>47879233
Actually well worded and thoughtful, thanks anon!
>>47878509
Easy. Anytime a player wants to modify a rule you set or introduce a new one, it costs XP.
>>47881283
This. If you're using the optional rules in the DMG you tell the little shit you'll use your houserules-tier flanking how you like it.
If he's a rogue I don't know man, just tell him to do that silly disengage-hide thing.
>>47878509
I say before the first dice roll that if I value time-at-table very highly and almost never do more than a cursory rules lookup on anything while I'm actually gaming. Feel free to point out if I'm wrong about something but come at me with a page # because game time is precious and I'm going to make a band-aid ruling right then and there so we can move.
After the game, though, I'm willing to do a more thorough research/discussion of the ruleset and the situation. If I change my mind about the ruling I'll "pay back" anyone hurt by the temp ruling with interest, and before the next game I'll let everyone know the actual standing ruling for the future.
And then I actually do that for real.
Surprising or no I've never had a rules lawyering incident under that policy. My players know if they come in with "it's actually dex for both atk and dmg, it's on page 281" I'm liable to say "thanks, your next save auto-succeeds" and in return they take me at my word when I say "I'm almost certain that a weapon 'counting as' finesse is different than actually being 'being' a finesse weapon so we'll play that tonight, but I promise to crawl up every gaming site on the web tomorrow and let you know.for sure."
It's...glorious, actually.
>>47888460
Ninja'd.
I've got the same policy and was about to post it. As you said, works great.
