Helping Rules Lawyers Make Their Case | GM Diary

[@smoothesuede4978]

This is great perspective, and is a wonderful tool to help empower the players narratively at the same time as being mechanically fair. Literally win-win. I'll be checking this channel for more wisdom in the future.

[@MilestonePlay]

Thank you for the kind comment! I've got a whole playlist of GM Diaries that are all about the muddied-waters of applied GM advice and GM moments rather than the pristine, theorycraft of great GMing!

[@Drudenfusz]

I no longer run any D&D, but back when I did I used to be open to creative use of game mechanics. Since I never understood my position as the one running the game to be adversarial to the players, but as cooperative. Well, that is why I moved even further to narrative focused games, and design my own system to work without the need for a game master. And advantage or the like is not needed since I discarded the notion of rolling for competency or to check for capabilities of the character altogether. My system is about who the characters are and not so much what they can do.

[@tangent_mechanic]

I've seen rules lawyers shut down a game for up to 30ish minutes arguing with the DM about something. I've never seen it done benevolently. It's people who want to get an edge, trying to find any means to do so.

[@HardyLeBel-c9r]

The rules provide a framework for modeling combat dynamics in a fantasy setting, and your initial mistake was deciding that the mechanic (sneak attack bonus from an adjacent ally) could only be explained in one way. The mechanics are an abstract model, so try asking the player to narrate how they are getting their bonus within the fiction. Your second is in assuming that “your job is the story.” Your job is to handle the mechanical elements of the game, and provide challenges for the players to overcome as they live out the story. Leave it up to them to describe how and why their abilities work in the world, and both sides of the table will be happier.