Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[medikant]

My dislike of rules lawyers is due to scenarios such as this;
GM: Sets the scene and gets everyone hyped up.
RL: Begins tearing the scene down due to an obscure rule conflict.
GM: Asks to be reminded after the game about the rule, but encourages the group to continue so flow does not get disrupted.
RL: Complains the rest of the evening about the scene and disrupts the game.

I don't mind being reminded about rules as I occasional forget or might not be up to date with the currently released books/changes. It's when it interferes with the session that it becomes an issue. I typically asked to be reminded or have the player write down the "rule" so I can check it out after the session.

[Blue_Lion]

When one plays a game for rules one has lost sight of the fun they should be having durning a game.

On what do you base your claim that games are about fun?
What level of fun should a person have during a game?

I base it on entertainment value.

By all means elaborate.
Are you saying that because you have fun with games, that fun is necessarily the sole primary purpose of games for everybody, always?
Or that because games tend to have entertainment value, that entertainment must be a necessary component for everybody, in all games?

The level of fun one should have durning game should be based upon the amount of entertainment they seek.

What if they don't seek entertainment, and are playing for other reasons?

Entertainment is subjective and based upon a person by person bases. What entertains you in a game may not be what entertains me. I play to enjoy the interaction of friends and family, this entertains me which is fun.
If one plays for something then entertainment then I have no idea why they would choose to play.

I have to agree I play games to have fun. When they stop being fun like WOW did I stop playing.

[Killer Cyborg]

If one plays for something [other] then entertainment then I have no idea why they would choose to play.

That seems to be the crux of your argument, but your personal lack of understanding doesn't create a mandate for all of reality: just because you don't personally understand any reason other than entertainment that people might play games does not mean that the purpose of games is always entertainment.

A LOT of people play games for money, from gamblers to professional athletes.
Many people play games because they're forced to play them (PE classes in school, for example).
Some people play games to fit in with a specific social group.
Some people play games to sharpen their skills.
Some people play game to demonstrate pride for a community that they're a part of (olympics, professional sports, etc.)
Some people play games to impress other people.

Really, there's all kinds of reasons why people play games.
Entertainment value is a common ingredient of games, but by no means a necessary requirement.

Rules, on the other hand, are a necessary requirement.
As I've said, I've played many games where there was no entertainment value, but I've never played any games where there were no rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have to agree I play games to have fun. When they stop being fun like WOW did I stop playing.

The instant that they stop being fun?

Say you're playing blackjack.
You win the first hand. You have fun.
You lose the second hand. You do not have fun.
Do you instantly quit, go home, and never play Blackjack again?

For me, I quit playing games when the potential rewards are outweighed by the potential punishments.
Fun is one of the main rewards of game-playing, but by no means the only one.

[Noon]

In terms of fun being more like a close secondary goal, that can vary in amount during play for that reason, I probably agree with KC (though if he's on some extreme end of fun not mattering at all, I'll pitch what is the point of a life where you win all the games you play, when all the games you play are suck?)

Activities that are, as a first priority, all about fun are really just exercises in flattery. You'll never lose because losing is less fun - so when fun really is first, the organiser will always just give the illusion you can lose, so when he makes sure you win, you feel flattered that you won in the face of 'potentially' losing. Just another technique for flattery, really, though somewhat sophisticated. Like when parents let their small children win a foot race and the kids just think they genuinely won.

A literal take on 'its all about fun' is that 'its all about flattery'.

[Killer Cyborg]

Really, there's all kinds of reasons why people play games.
Entertainment value is a common ingredient of games, but by no means a necessary requirement.

Rules, on the other hand, are a necessary requirement.
As I've said, I've played many games where there was no entertainment value, but I've never played any games where there were no rules.

And as we are playing and discussing a system that requires rule changes and fixes one can not claim that rules are the reason to play, their must be another reason.

Rules aren't the reason to play a game. Rules are the method of play.
There are all kinds of reasons for play, no one true purpose.*

From your perspective, your purpose in playing is to have fun. The rules exist only (or at least primarily) to serve that purpose. Therefore, any change to the rules is good, as long as it serves to help players have more fun.

From my perspective, I have a number of purposes in playing RPGs. The rules exist to serve those multiple purposes. Therefore, any change to the rules may or may not be good, depending on how it interacts with my various purposes. It's not as simple as "if it makes things more fun, do it," because in the process of making things more fun, I might be subverting some or all of the other purposes for my playing the game in the first place.



*Well, I've argued that there IS a true purpose, but that argument comes down to how you define "purpose."
For the purposes of this conversation, I'm willing to leave that one alone.

[Killer Cyborg]

Ninja Bunny

A LOT of people play games for money, from gamblers to professional athletes.this is no longer playing it is a career, a job they are now working.

When a person refers to "a professional baseball player," do you correct them, and say, "No. The at person is a professional baseball worker"...?

It seems to me that work and play are by no means mutually exclusive. I've played while I was working, and worked while I was playing.

Many people play games because they're forced to play them (PE classes in school, for example).this is not playing it is learning this is why it is called gym class or physical education.

So when a kid says, "we played baseball in PE today," you correct them by saying, "No. You learned baseball today!"...?

It seems to me that learning and playing are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that learning is one of the most common reasons that people play games.
Would you say that you've never learned anything while playing a game?

Some people play games to fit in with a specific social group.this isn't playing it is as you said attempting to fit in.

Playing in an attempt to fit in.
If there's a guy at the game table with you, and he's rolling dice and acting in character, do you stop and chastise him for "not playing" the game, if he's really only engaging in the game to be social?

Some people play games to sharpen their skills.this is called practice not playing.

It can be called practice.
But if you think it isn't called playing, then I think you should make a case to that effect, because it's a pretty odd claim to make.

Some people play game to [demonstrate pride] for a community that they're a part of (olympics, professional sports, etc.)

Yes.

Some people play games to impress other people.this is called flirting or as you put it am attempt to impress.

Actually, you can play to impress people without flirting. Lots of sports players play their games in order to impress their coach, or their parents, or any number of people in their lives.
I hope you don't consider all of that to be flirting.

Also, I'm not sure, but you seem to be saying that flirting and play are mutually exclusive, while I'd consider flirting to be a kind of play.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes
Yes

I'm skeptical.
But either way, ask around. I think you'll find precious few people who agree on those points.

Then tht person is their to be entertained which is fun.

No. They may or may not be entertained, but they're there to fit in.

Not going to as my statement is my claim

Either way, practice and play aren't mutually exclusive. Calling something "practice" doesn't mean or indicate that it isn't play.

As stated it is one or the other to flirt or impress

Either way, impressing people is not mutually exclusive with play.
People are often impressed by the way that other people play.

[Blue_Lion]

I have to agree I play games to have fun. When they stop being fun like WOW did I stop playing.

The instant that they stop being fun?

Say you're playing blackjack.
You win the first hand. You have fun.
You lose the second hand. You do not have fun.
Do you instantly quit, go home, and never play Blackjack again?

For me, I quit playing games when the potential rewards are outweighed by the potential punishments.
Fun is one of the main rewards of game-playing, but by no means the only one.

I don't gamble. So I do not play blackjack or slots not even when I worked at a casino.

So for me any game I play is about having fun when they stop being fun I stop playing. If later down the road I think it will be fun again I will play again. However I should point out having fun is not always about winning. And it is not the instant they stop being fun with board games or RPGs I will finish the session and just not play again, so I will not quit in the middle of a session and ruin the game for others.

[Blue_Lion]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

[Killer Cyborg]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

Actually, that's a very, very good reason to bring IN other games.
You're right- I've never heard anybody complaining about Rules Lawyers in any other major game industry. Not in baseball, not in the Olympics, not in Monopoly, not in chess, not in Chinese checkers, not in curling.
And yet, role-players very often complain about people who are "too caught up in the rules."

What makes RPGs so supposedly different?
Why hold them to such a different standard?

[Killer Cyborg]

However I should point out having fun is not always about winning.

Agreed.
My point is that RPGs are NOT a constant barrage of non-stop fun. Few if any games really are.
There are often gaps in RPGs where things aren't all that fun.

And it is not the instant they stop being fun with board games or RPGs I will finish the session and just not play again, so I will not quit in the middle of a session and ruin the game for others.

Interesting.
So you would keep playing out the session, even if you're not having fun?

[flatline]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

Actually, that's a very, very good reason to bring IN other games.
You're right- I've never heard anybody complaining about Rules Lawyers in any other major game industry. Not in baseball, not in the Olympics, not in Monopoly, not in chess, not in Chinese checkers, not in curling.
And yet, role-players very often complain about people who are "too caught up in the rules."

What makes RPGs so supposedly different?
Why hold them to such a different standard?

In most kinds of games, the rules must be followed and so being a "rules lawyer" is the norm and therefore there's no need to even coin a term for it. For example, in football or baseball, if you're caught breaking the rules, you're punished.

In tactical war games, again, everyone is expected to know all the relevant rules and to follow them completely. Breaking a rule is cheating and so they have a label for that: "cheater". A "rules lawyer" in this context is simply a "non-cheater".

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed. The rules are there to help simulate the setting and any time the GM feels that the rules do not simulate the setting he wants, he is free to ignore or replace the rules. Players normally go along with this. A player that objects to this and insists that the rules be followed to the letter is not the norm in this context and so the term "rules lawyer" was coined.

So to sum up, in an RPG, rules are suggestions on how to simulate the setting. In other kinds of games, rules define what is allowable. This is what makes RPGs special.

--flatline

[popscythe]

A player that objects to this and insists that the rules be followed to the letter is not the norm in this context and so the term "rules lawyer" was coined.

I like this slant on rules lawyering. I don't think this is the only valid definition, but this definition made me smile.

[Blue_Lion]

However I should point out having fun is not always about winning.

Agreed.
My point is that RPGs are NOT a constant barrage of non-stop fun. Few if any games really are.
There are often gaps in RPGs where things aren't all that fun.

And it is not the instant they stop being fun with board games or RPGs I will finish the session and just not play again, so I will not quit in the middle of a session and ruin the game for others.

Interesting.
So you would keep playing out the session, even if you're not having fun?

I would finish out the session and not return for another. It is a major breach of educate to throw a fit and leave in the middle of a game in session. But I am only staying out of educate at the point and not because I want to, as a game that I am not enjoying serves no purpose to me.

There may be slow parts in the fun of a game but if over all it is fun I keep playing when it feels like a second job or no fun at all I stop.

[Blue_Lion]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

Actually, that's a very, very good reason to bring IN other games.
You're right- I've never heard anybody complaining about Rules Lawyers in any other major game industry. Not in baseball, not in the Olympics, not in Monopoly, not in chess, not in Chinese checkers, not in curling.
And yet, role-players very often complain about people who are "too caught up in the rules."

What makes RPGs so supposedly different?
Why hold them to such a different standard?

Because RPGs the fundamentals of RPGs are different. In other gaming field one side wins and one side looses. In RPGs that is not the case they fall more in the creative side of the house.

Think about this even if the GM kills the whole party in the fist 5 minutes of a game he does not win. Even if the party wins a fight they do not win the game. Like life there is no set end goal.

What makes it different it is in the title Role Play, basically coming together for a group generated story. Now how in depth the story is depends on the group.

So the difference is in the fundamentals of the game that is why it held to a different standard.

You statement is like saying why hold baseball to a different standard than chess. Both games players should be tested for steroids.

[Noon]

However I should point out having fun is not always about winning.

Agreed.
My point is that RPGs are NOT a constant barrage of non-stop fun. Few if any games really are.
There are often gaps in RPGs where things aren't all that fun.

Not having to be absolutely fun all the time doesn't mean they can be no fun at all at times and that's just fine. A reduction in the fun, but still fun - sure. Not fun at all at certain times (especially if it's not fun for anyone involved)? That's just borked.

[Noon]

Because RPGs the fundamentals of RPGs are different. In other gaming field one side wins and one side looses. In RPGs that is not the case they fall more in the creative side of the house.

Is this just treating there as being only one true way to roleplay?

I think creatives often are afraid of people who play to win and try to deny play to win is even one type of roleplay, since that might let one of them dirty play to win folk into their creative game and spoil all their creative stuff. Somehow.

Yeah, I get alot of folk work real hard to try and expunge or convert play to win into their way of roleplaying - perhaps doing so so much they treat their way of roleplaying as the ONLY way.

But really weve all gotten older and it's time to get over that.

[Noon]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I like how everyones supposed to know this, but, like, without it actually being written down or anything, as in a rule...

The predominance of 'the rules are not there to be followed' is simply from the volume of people shouting it. Past the shouting, it's not grounded in anything. It's just one way some want to play, but they shout like it's the only way it is played.

[Nightmask]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I like how everyones supposed to know this, but, like, without it actually being written down or anything, as in a rule...

The predominance of 'the rules are not there to be followed' is simply from the volume of people shouting it. Past the shouting, it's not grounded in anything. It's just one way some want to play, but they shout like it's the only way it is played.

It's grounded in the 'the GM can change or discard any rules he feels like', which implies that the rules aren't in fact 'you must follow these always and without question' because we're already told that they can be changed for any reason the GM feels like. Unlike when you're playing Candyland where nothing says 'you can change these rules whenever you feel like', although even then people still actually house rule board games (Monopoly has a number of optional house rules that have formed over the decades).

[flatline]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I like how everyones supposed to know this, but, like, without it actually being written down or anything, as in a rule...

The predominance of 'the rules are not there to be followed' is simply from the volume of people shouting it. Past the shouting, it's not grounded in anything. It's just one way some want to play, but they shout like it's the only way it is played.

It's not the only way to play an RPG, but it's the only way that I play an RPG. If I want to be bound by strict and arbitrary rules, I'll play a video game or, perhaps, a tactical war game (although it's my experience that tactical war games are far more fun to plan than to play).

I understand that everyone has their own desires and expectations about RPGs. Heck, RPG designers understand this and it's not uncommon for an RPG book to explicitly state that it's OK to change the rules if you don't like them.

--flatline

[Blue_Lion]

Because RPGs the fundamentals of RPGs are different. In other gaming field one side wins and one side looses. In RPGs that is not the case they fall more in the creative side of the house.

Is this just treating there as being only one true way to roleplay?

I think creatives often are afraid of people who play to win and try to deny play to win is even one type of roleplay, since that might let one of them dirty play to win folk into their creative game and spoil all their creative stuff. Somehow.

Yeah, I get alot of folk work real hard to try and expunge or convert play to win into their way of roleplaying - perhaps doing so so much they treat their way of roleplaying as the ONLY way.

But really weve all gotten older and it's time to get over that.

How do you beat a RPG? How do you win something that is basically open ended? Min-maxers are still being creative, heck even rules lawyers are creative. even hack and slash players are creative. There are as many ways to play a RPG as there ways to be creative but unless you are playing for prizes do you ever win anything?

You are trying to twist my words, one team does not win in a RPG, if the GM kills the group as quick as he can that can be seen as GM fail. If you have two sides at a table for one side to win one must loose, are you calling GMs the biggest losers in RPGs?

[Damian Magecraft]

Because RPGs the fundamentals of RPGs are different. In other gaming field one side wins and one side looses. In RPGs that is not the case they fall more in the creative side of the house.

Is this just treating there as being only one true way to roleplay?

I think creatives often are afraid of people who play to win and try to deny play to win is even one type of roleplay, since that might let one of them dirty play to win folk into their creative game and spoil all their creative stuff. Somehow.

Yeah, I get alot of folk work real hard to try and expunge or convert play to win into their way of roleplaying - perhaps doing so so much they treat their way of roleplaying as the ONLY way.

But really weve all gotten older and it's time to get over that.

How do you beat a RPG? How do you win something that is basically open ended? Min-maxers are still being creative, heck even rules lawyers are creative. even hack and slash players are creative. There are as many ways to play a RPG as there ways to be creative but unless you are playing for prizes do you ever win anything?

You are trying to twist my words, one team does not win in a RPG, if the GM kills the group as quick as he can that can be seen as GM fail. If you have two sides at a table for one side to win one must loose, are you calling GMs the biggest losers in RPGs?

It is possible to play to win (where everyone wins).
The goal is to HAVE FUN.
If everyone at the table had an enjoyable time then the win conditions were achieved.

[Giant2005]

Here's a question: Could a Rules Lawyer even exist in a game where the GM knew all of the rules and applied those same rules?
If the answer is no, is the fault at the hands of the Rules Lawyer who wants to apply those rules, or the GM that isn't aware of the rules of the game he has chosen to referee?

[Damian Magecraft]

Here's a question: Could a Rules Lawyer even exist in a game where the GM knew all of the rules and applied those same rules?
If the answer is no, is the fault at the hands of the Rules Lawyer who wants to apply those rules, or the GM that isn't aware of the rules of the game he has chosen to referee?

Wiki defines a Rules Lawyer as

A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.

So the answer in light of this commonly accepted definition of the term is yes they can still exist.

[Noon]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I like how everyones supposed to know this, but, like, without it actually being written down or anything, as in a rule...

The predominance of 'the rules are not there to be followed' is simply from the volume of people shouting it. Past the shouting, it's not grounded in anything. It's just one way some want to play, but they shout like it's the only way it is played.

It's grounded in the 'the GM can change or discard any rules he feels like',

No, that doesn't say 'the rules aren't there to be followed'. Read it again. It's not telling you to do it. It's just saying you can (and as your monopoly example shows, you don't even need permission from a text to do that (you just need permission for new house rules from your fellow participants))

[popscythe]

You guys wanna play an inpromptu game of Rifts?

[Killer Cyborg]

]i do not think we will agree on this topic. I do not think people play for rules

Not sure what you mean by "play for rules."
If you're saying that people don't play with "rules" as their goal, then I agree. I'm not even sure how that would be possible, or what it would entail.
If you're saying that you don't think that people purchase games for the rules, then I have to disagree. There are reasons why games include rules- the rules make up the game.

and you don't feel people play for fun.

Actually, that's not even close to what I've said.

Edit; I should rephrase to say that fun is not am exclusive reason for play and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.

I agree with both parts. Fun is not an exclusive reason to play, and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.
(again, really, I don't know how "rules" could be a reason to play at all)

[Killer Cyborg]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

Actually, that's a very, very good reason to bring IN other games.
You're right- I've never heard anybody complaining about Rules Lawyers in any other major game industry. Not in baseball, not in the Olympics, not in Monopoly, not in chess, not in Chinese checkers, not in curling.
And yet, role-players very often complain about people who are "too caught up in the rules."

What makes RPGs so supposedly different?
Why hold them to such a different standard?

In most kinds of games, the rules must be followed and so being a "rules lawyer" is the norm and therefore there's no need to even coin a term for it. For example, in football or baseball, if you're caught breaking the rules, you're punished.

If you're in a professional league, perhaps, but many kids play baseball and/or football using lax, free-form rules, without the kind of strict conformity that you see in professional sports.

In tactical war games, again, everyone is expected to know all the relevant rules and to follow them completely. Breaking a rule is cheating and so they have a label for that: "cheater". A "rules lawyer" in this context is simply a "non-cheater".

I hold the context roughly the same with RPGs, which are in part tactical combat simulations just like war games are.

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I disagree.
Do you have any support for this claim?

[Killer Cyborg]

Lets narrow the field a bit instead of covering all games lets limit it to RPGs as I never hear people complaining about rules lawyers in sports or gambling.

Actually, that's a very, very good reason to bring IN other games.
You're right- I've never heard anybody complaining about Rules Lawyers in any other major game industry. Not in baseball, not in the Olympics, not in Monopoly, not in chess, not in Chinese checkers, not in curling.
And yet, role-players very often complain about people who are "too caught up in the rules."

What makes RPGs so supposedly different?
Why hold them to such a different standard?

Because RPGs the fundamentals of RPGs are different. In other gaming field one side wins and one side loses. In RPGs that is not the case

That's not necessarily true.
There are non-RPG games where there are winners and losers.
And there are ways to win and lose at RPGs.

Think about this even if the GM kills the whole party in the fist 5 minutes of a game he does not win.

That depends on the goals of the GM in question.

Even if the party wins a fight they do not win the game. Like life there is no set end goal.

If the party completes an adventure successfully, though, they have won.
In RPGs, there are typically specific goals that can be accomplished, often even specific end goals.

What makes it different it is in the title Role Play, basically coming together for a group generated story. Now how in depth the story is depends on the group.

I don't feel that the words "Role-Playing" negate the word "Game."
RPGs are still games, and games have rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

However I should point out having fun is not always about winning.

Agreed.
My point is that RPGs are NOT a constant barrage of non-stop fun. Few if any games really are.
There are often gaps in RPGs where things aren't all that fun.

Not having to be absolutely fun all the time doesn't mean they can be no fun at all at times and that's just fine.

Agreed, although it also doesn't specifically mean that it's NOT just fine.

A reduction in the fun, but still fun - sure. Not fun at all at certain times (especially if it's not fun for anyone involved)? That's just borked.

It happens.
Sometimes you work through the non-fun times in order to get to the fun times.
In computer RPGs it happens quite frequently, with grinding.
With table-top RPGs, it happens in other ways.

[Killer Cyborg]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I like how everyones supposed to know this, but, like, without it actually being written down or anything, as in a rule...

The predominance of 'the rules are not there to be followed' is simply from the volume of people shouting it. Past the shouting, it's not grounded in anything. It's just one way some want to play, but they shout like it's the only way it is played.

It's grounded in the 'the GM can change or discard any rules he feels like', which implies that the rules aren't in fact 'you must follow these always and without question' because we're already told that they can be changed for any reason the GM feels like. Unlike when you're playing Candyland where nothing says 'you can change these rules whenever you feel like', although even then people still actually house rule board games (Monopoly has a number of optional house rules that have formed over the decades).

Any mention in RPGs of "the GM can change the rules" was always just an unnecessary truism.
Of course the GM can change the rules. What's the alternative, some guys will knock on your door and disappear you...?
No, house-rules are accepted as a standard potential in our society, in all games from Monopoly to Baseball to Chess.
Other games don't mention that kind of thing simply because it's NOT necessary to mention it.

Also, by hinging your argument that RPGs are different on specific statements that GMs can change the rules, you're making the argument that any and every RPG that does NOT include such a statement would be just as rigid rules-wise as Candyland is.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well the gm does create enemies for the pcs to fight, so they are trying to beat those enemies. But in the end gms should not be trying to beat the players, not should the players be trying to beat the gm. They are in it to have fun with in the story being told.

Sometimes.
Sometimes not.

[flatline]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I disagree.
Do you have any support for this claim?

You are welcome to disagree.

It is my own opinion that RPGs are about playing the setting as opposed to the rules. However, I have a shelf full of main books of various systems where somewhere in many of them, the authors have said something equivalent to "you don't like it? change it! it's your game!" which would seem to imply that the people who design RPGs have a similar opinion to the one I've presented.

I have never seen such a statement in anything sold as a tactical war game. It's a different mindset.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's a question: Could a Rules Lawyer even exist in a game where the GM knew all of the rules and applied those same rules?
If the answer is no, is the fault at the hands of the Rules Lawyer who wants to apply those rules, or the GM that isn't aware of the rules of the game he has chosen to referee?

Wiki defines a Rules Lawyer as

A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.

So the answer in light of this commonly accepted definition of the term is yes they can still exist.

That's actually the best definition of the term that I've ever seen!

It's a definition, though, that once again highlights the oddness of "rules-laywers" only being a "problem" with RPGs.
How is the "spirit of the rule" more important than the "letter of the law" in RPGs any more than in any other game?

[Killer Cyborg]

It is my own opinion that RPGs are about playing the setting as opposed to the rules.

Do you have a logical basis for this opinion?

However, I have a shelf full of main books of various systems where somewhere in many of them, the authors have said something equivalent to "you don't like it? change it! it's your game!" which would seem to imply that the people who design RPGs have a similar opinion to the one I've presented.

Sometimes, in some games, perhaps.
And in the rest of the RPGs, where no such mention is made?

I have never seen such a statement in anything sold as a tactical war game. It's a different mindset.

IIRC, the whole "If you don't like it, change it" notation in RPGs came from backlash about Gygax's rigidity with his rules, and his insistence that house-rules were bad.
Since the makers of tactical war games never (that I know of) took a firm stance on such matters, there wasn't any backlash, and no perceived need to state the obvious.

[Killer Cyborg]

]i do not think we will agree on this topic. I do not think people play for rules

Not sure what you mean by "play for rules."
If you're saying that people don't play with "rules" as their goal, then I agree. I'm not even sure how that would be possible, or what it would entail.
If you're saying that you don't think that people purchase games for the rules, then I have to disagree. There are reasons why games include rules- the rules make up the game.

and you don't feel people play for fun.

Actually, that's not even close to what I've said.

Edit; I should rephrase to say that fun is not am exclusive reason for play and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.

I agree with both parts. Fun is not an exclusive reason to play, and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.
(again, really, I don't know how "rules" could be a reason to play at all)

To the first two that is the reason I added the edit to show my real intent.
The original post of your that started our dialog sounded like your main reason for play was the rules. As it seems I had misinterpreted your meaning, I would be happy to with draw from the convertation.

My point was that rules are necessary for games, fun is not.
Therefore, assuming that fun always automatically has primacy over rules is not logical.

[Tor]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

Actually they are, there's just flexibility to change them. You can change rules in things like chess or baseball too. When this occurs, players are generally made aware of that though. Roleplaying may tend to be less competetive and discretely winning-focused so there's more tolerence, but the rules are still there to be followed, even if they may be altered for enjoyment.

The rules are there to help simulate the setting and any time the GM feels that the rules do not simulate the setting he wants, he is free to ignore or replace the rules.

Players are also free to ignore or replace GMs.

Players normally go along with this.

Do they? I think the frequency of that depends on the severity and consistency of alterations. If a GM said "hey you know how ley line walkers can channel 20/melee? Well I like shifters so they can now channel 100/melee."

This might irk the LLW and other mages on the team who aren't shifters. Especially if, say, the GM's girlfriend was playing a shifter.

A player that objects to this and insists that the rules be followed to the letter is not the norm in this context and so the term "rules lawyer" was coined.

Being a rules lawyer doesn't mean you insist on letter following, it just means they will bring awareness when exceptions to the rules are being made.

This tends to be done when GMs institute changes to rules without notifying players. "I'm doubling the roll you need to make for all savings throws", for example.

in an RPG, rules are suggestions on how to simulate the setting. In other kinds of games, rules define what is allowable. This is what makes RPGs special.

RPGs are not special in that regard. All rules are suggestions and all games can be modified. That's why we have spinoffs of baseball like softball and t-ball, or why we have trampoline basketball.

The difference with RPGs is that GMs tend to abuse their authority and make changes more rapidly and with less awareness, which can frustrate players.

GMs who notify players well in advance the type of game (in terms of rules) they will be playing, both so they can roleplay correctly (because rules do affect the world you're roleplaying a resident off) and so you can make an informed choice about whether or not you want to player, don't tend to get flack from "rules lawyers".

A pejorative coined by those who call out GMs who aren't effective enough leaders and don't care enough for players' feelings.

Any mention in RPGs of "the GM can change the rules" was always just an unnecessary truism. Of course the GM can change the rules. What's the alternative, some guys will knock on your door and disappear you...?

Well, if you're playing a game of Ninjas and Superspies...

It is my own opinion that RPGs are about playing the setting as opposed to the rules.

It occurs to me that one impartial way to determine what books are more about is to do a page or word count comparing the amount of space dedicated towards describing the settings verbally, and the amount of space dedicated towards giving things statistics.

Books like Vampire Kingdoms certainly give the 'setting' impression. Some of the later sourcebooks on the other hand...

[Blue_Lion]

Well the gm does create enemies for the pcs to fight, so they are trying to beat those enemies. But in the end gms should not be trying to beat the players, not should the players be trying to beat the gm. They are in it to have fun with in the story being told.

Sometimes.
Sometimes not.

Well hack master is GM vs players but then again it was written as based on a comic.

[Blue_Lion]

]i do not think we will agree on this topic. I do not think people play for rules

Not sure what you mean by "play for rules."
If you're saying that people don't play with "rules" as their goal, then I agree. I'm not even sure how that would be possible, or what it would entail.
If you're saying that you don't think that people purchase games for the rules, then I have to disagree. There are reasons why games include rules- the rules make up the game.

and you don't feel people play for fun.

Actually, that's not even close to what I've said.

Edit; I should rephrase to say that fun is not am exclusive reason for play and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.

I agree with both parts. Fun is not an exclusive reason to play, and rules are not an exclusive reason for play.
(again, really, I don't know how "rules" could be a reason to play at all)

To the first two that is the reason I added the edit to show my real intent.
The original post of your that started our dialog sounded like your main reason for play was the rules. As it seems I had misinterpreted your meaning, I would be happy to with draw from the convertation.

My point was that rules are necessary for games, fun is not.
Therefore, assuming that fun always automatically has primacy over rules is not logical.

I don't sounds logical to me if the rules are no fun why do you need to fallow them when the goal is to have not, and not just to win.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't sounds logical to me if the rules are no fun why do you need to fallow them when the goal is to have not, and not just to win.

I'll let you try that one again, before I reply.
It's a bit too garbled for me to guess right now.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well the gm does create enemies for the pcs to fight, so they are trying to beat those enemies. But in the end gms should not be trying to beat the players, not should the players be trying to beat the gm. They are in it to have fun with in the story being told.

Sometimes.
Sometimes not.

Well hack master is GM vs players but then again it was written as based on a comic.

I've seen GM vs. Players games with all kinds of RPGs.
But my point was that people aren't always in it just to have fun with the story.

[Qev]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all. Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules. And Palladium has a lot of those, some of which are silly.

Or you're implying that official rules can be picked and decided on by group decision.

That too, of course.

The rules are there to help create a play structure, but they're not absolutely required. I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Not even Rule 0?

Yup! Free-form RP, no GM required. Everyone just makes up some character and goes for it. Obviously you need some sort of consensus on theme and whatnot. It's I suppose this weird nebulous area between RP and collaborative fiction.

[Killer Cyborg]

I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Not even Rule 0?

Yup! Free-form RP, no GM required. Everyone just makes up some character and goes for it. Obviously you need some sort of consensus on theme and whatnot. It's I suppose this weird nebulous area between RP and collaborative fiction.

Sounds like you have a rule about consensus being needed.

[Blue_Lion]

I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Not even Rule 0?

Yup! Free-form RP, no GM required. Everyone just makes up some character and goes for it. Obviously you need some sort of consensus on theme and whatnot. It's I suppose this weird nebulous area between RP and collaborative fiction.

Sounds like you have a rule about consensus being needed.

Sounds like Echo.

[Dog_O_War]

For role playing games, however, the rules are not there to be followed.

I disagree.
Do you have any support for this claim?

You are welcome to disagree.

It is my own opinion that RPGs are about playing the setting as opposed to the rules. However, I have a shelf full of main books of various systems where somewhere in many of them, the authors have said something equivalent to "you don't like it? change it! it's your game!" which would seem to imply that the people who design RPGs have a similar opinion to the one I've presented.

I have never seen such a statement in anything sold as a tactical war game. It's a different mindset.

--flatline

There is a distinct flaw in your thought-process there.

See, if you don't like a rule, then you do what with it?

Get rid of it?
Change it?

Either way, that is still a rule; "rule X is no longer in effect" is now a rule in and of itself.

RPGs are wholly and irrevocably governed by rules. it's the transmutable and unknowing nature of the GMs whim that is the true gripe here. It's not so much that a GM makes his own rules, it's that they change them and make them up on the spot.
That is the real gripe.

[flatline]

Well the gm does create enemies for the pcs to fight, so they are trying to beat those enemies. But in the end gms should not be trying to beat the players, not should the players be trying to beat the gm. They are in it to have fun with in the story being told.

Sometimes.
Sometimes not.

Well hack master is GM vs players but then again it was written as based on a comic.

I've seen GM vs. Players games with all kinds of RPGs.
But my point was that people aren't always in it just to have fun with the story.

just a similar but unrelated point: One of the best Zombie Games out right now is a war game, it covers zombie attack/survival in a war game perspective. (Its' a title from Two hour War games, Of which i don't remember the title, but available on rpg now)


and the reason it's one of the best in the genre? .. because it handles all the aspects rpgs tend to ignore. mainly the meta that keeps the characters alive.

If you remember the name, please post it.

--flatline

[Daeglan]

I believe this thread is a fine example of why people dislike rules lawyers.

[DhAkael]

I believe this thread is a fine example of why people dislike rules lawyers.

X 9,000!!!
TRUTH!

[Alrik Vas]

Example:

Game has a mechanic where one (player, and some NPC's) can expend a meta-resource permanently to avoid death, but they will be unconscious and unable to act without medical attention.

Villainous NPC strikes down a player, who expends such resource, however aside being out, he is also maimed, having lost his left arm.

Later in the fight, i do enough damage to Villainous NPC's head to cook it crispy. GM declares NPC also expends meta-resource. This tells us, the players, that by the damage and location, he shouldn't have eyes, ears or anything of the sort etc...and be quite unconscious. This would seem to keep in the rule the GM is using.

GM rules that NPC's face is only just really messed up and he manages to limp away, collapsing the hall we would be able to use to chase him.

It just so happens that the character who had been put down and lost an arm is also our rules lawyer. Can you imagine how pissed he must have been?

This is a good example of what Dog_O_War was talking about.