Dog_O_War wrote:Alrik Vas wrote:See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.
When I find that a rules lawyer is "contradicting" a ruling given out by the GM, it is actually the GM contradicting themselves and said rules lawyer calling them on it.
For example;
(start of game)
R.L.: "so we're playing by the book's rules, and those house-rules you have, right?"
GM: "yeah, that's the way I do it. It's totally fair for everyone"
(later in the game)
GM: "okay <action> happens; you all <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "why? the rules say that when 'Y' happens, we avoid 'X', like in this situation."
GM: "No. You all still <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "but that's not in the rules you said we were using. If I had known, I wouldn't have done 'Z'."
etc.And that's how it plays out like 90% of the time.
Generally, this takes up time, and only one player has the will to take a stand, while other sheepish players will instead say nothing, or suck-up to the GM by "being on the GM's side". Again, other players will complain that such actions 'delay the game', but role-playing isn't golf - there is no 'rate of play' clause here.
There are a couple of things a player can do if their GM insists on being God (and not just playing them) for the game; Not play. But this option sucks.
Complain ineffectually to the others after the fact, creating a subversive atmosphere and ultimately doom the game. Which also sucks.
Or you can attempt the risky, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" technique. When the above situation happens (and not before), just add 150% of everything to your character, and when you get questioned on it, you say, "well if you're playing like the rules are a suggestion, then I have done nothing wrong here and my character is legitimate. If the rules aren't a suggestion, then I would more than happily go back to my original stats, so long as you go forth being fair and upholding your end of the agreement, which was that we were using said rules, modified by the rules you've given us copies for".
There is a lot to consider for both players and GMs when you play a game; namingly, that it is a game, first and foremost, and that games have rules.
here is the reason for the "hate"
META GAMING
Its the same reason Min/Maxers get flack
Dog used the example argument of "If I had known X I wouldnt have tried Z"
Which is pure bunk 90% of the time with Rules Lawyers.
They knew X would happen but they didnt plan on failing.
And they certainly didnt plan on the GM having a set of consequences in case X failed.
Thats when they start the arguments. (god forbid failure complicate things).
At the start of every game I post up my 5 Rules to a good game.
These rules supersede the books at all times.
5 Simple Rules for Good Game Mastering
#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)
#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc... (Remember consequences do not have to be bad things good things can come about as well).
#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? This is not a video game; The villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.
#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.
#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?
Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart) starts up I point to rule 4 and start the timer.
If after 5 minutes the RL continues to argue I point to rule 2 and hand him a blank character sheet saying "obviously you are dissatisfied with your current character perhaps a new one will make for a more enjoyable game for you?"
That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.
DM is correct by the way. - Ninjabunny
It's a shoddy carpenter who blames his tools. - Killer Cyborg
Every group has one problem player. If you cannot spot the one in your group; look in the mirror.
It is not a good session until at least one player looks you in the eye and says "you sick twisted evil ****"