Forums of the Megaverse®

Jesterzzn wrote:Well, I don't think rules lawyer is a term I would apply to someone that stuck to the rules even when it adversely effected them. To me that's just playing the game...by the rules.

More or less my definition of a rules lawyer.
They know the rules, and they play by them.
When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

I think that the term is best used when it describes someone who uses their expansive knowlege of a games mechanics to gain for themselves or the group maximum advantage. Sometimes that means creative interpratations of the rules. They look at the rules the same way that a lawyer does the law, meaning from the "clients" perspective. You hire a lawyer to get you out of (or maybe keep you out of) trouble with the law, and they will exploit the wording of the law to its fullest to gain you the maximum advantage that they can. So too do rules lawyers, as I term them. They not only know the rules, they use the rules to attempt to gain fullest advantage, and that sometimes means throwing all mannor of questionable interpretations at a GM and seeing if they stick.

I don't believe that all lawyers do try to exploit the wording of the law to the fullest, and I believe the same thing about rules lawyers.
But with your description I better understand where you're coming from.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jesterzzn wrote:Well, I don't think rules lawyer is a term I would apply to someone that stuck to the rules even when it adversely effected them. To me that's just playing the game...by the rules.

More or less my definition of a rules lawyer.
They know the rules, and they play by them.
When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

I refer to players such as these as Rules Police.
They enforce the rules equally.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I think that the term is best used when it describes someone who uses their expansive knowlege of a games mechanics to gain for themselves or the group maximum advantage. Sometimes that means creative interpratations of the rules. They look at the rules the same way that a lawyer does the law, meaning from the "clients" perspective. You hire a lawyer to get you out of (or maybe keep you out of) trouble with the law, and they will exploit the wording of the law to its fullest to gain you the maximum advantage that they can. So too do rules lawyers, as I term them. They not only know the rules, they use the rules to attempt to gain fullest advantage, and that sometimes means throwing all mannor of questionable interpretations at a GM and seeing if they stick.

I don't believe that all lawyers do try to exploit the wording of the law to the fullest, and I believe the same thing about rules lawyers.
But with your description I better understand where you're coming from.

Unfortunately this view is not universal.
A Rules Lawyer (by custom) is believed to find the "best" possible interpretation for himself and the party. Best way to spot one is to use his own interpretation against him. If he pitches a fit that you are being unfair then he is indeed the worst possible type of RL. Another indicator is the players insistence on stopping game play until everyone agrees with their opinion (right or wrong).

Shazam wrote:Gee havent you guys ever used an inter continental balistic cow? I mean as a GM I run the games for the enjoyment of the players. Having a rules lawyer denotes some sort of us vs them mentality.

No.

And hearing about that stuff makes me think that the game wasn't worth playing in. No offense, but if the GM has to resort to that type of childish cheezery the game couldn't be very good. Besides that, the very words evoke a mental image that breaks both the theme of the game and the verisimilitude created by the GM.


As for the various rules lawyers comments; Jesterzzn is accurate in that this is how the term is used. Unfortunately it's branded on other people who he's acknowledged are not rules lawyers, but people who play by the rules - good or ill. That enough of us are labelled as such means that the definition is now wrong; it means more along what Killer Cyborg has stated.

When it comes down to it - a rules lawyer does exploit the rules for their own benefit; but that's not something to be taken as a bad thing, nor to be used as a derrogatory. A rules lawyer can have a bad GM, and he can use the rules to keep himself alive when said bad GM makes bad or vindictive calls. That'd be an exploit of the rules to his advantage, but I wouldn't condemn him for that type of action.

Besides this, a rules loop-hole that isn't fixed deserves to be exploited. When it is fixed though, I don't see a reason to complain beyond being ret-conned against the exploit for making the game better in the end.

Dog_O_War wrote:A rules lawyer can have a bad GM, and he can use the rules to keep himself alive when said bad GM makes bad or vindictive calls. That'd be an exploit of the rules to his advantage, but I wouldn't condemn him for that type of action.

If you have to resort to turning into a rules lawyer due to the GM, then it's time for a new GM, not a justification for being a rules lawyer. While "condemn" is a bit harsh, I don't think people should play with bad GMs and I don't think bad GMs should get to redefine the phrase.

Dog_O_War wrote:Besides this, a rules loop-hole that isn't fixed deserves to be exploited.

It deserves to be fixed the moment the loop-hole is found.

Natasha wrote:I'm not sure how I did it, but I managed to only post a sentence of my post.

Dog_O_War wrote:The rules lay out the guidelines on what a person can and cannot do in a game. I can't just say, "I jump to the moon!" and expect it to work; the rules disallow this because of mechanics, setting, and verisimilitude.

Actually a character can expect to jump to the moon.

Never said that. I said that he'd expect it to work.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Therefore a reminder is offered about the other situation, and that if their character can do as such, then it is only fair to assume that this character can also do the same.

That doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me. Perhaps we have different definition of "rules lawyer".

Tell that to my GM.

Natasha wrote:He could be rules lawyering, however. Rules lawyers not only argue the rules, but also exploit the rules to their maximum benefit - don't metagamers do the same thing?

No. A meta-gamer will take information gained as a player (be it a rule, fluff-text, or vibe from the GM) and use it to their in-game advantage.
Two examples of this.
Reading a pre-made adventure to know what will happen next.

Personal example; a story.
Some friends of mine were playing D&D (all close friends and family) and they had just beaten a big, tough monster (I think it was either a lich or a dragon). They were going through the magical loot; one such piece was a girdle identified as a girdle of giant's strength (this was 2nd ED btw). Well my one friend who was examining it saw a devilish grin on the GM (his brother's) face, and instead gave it to another friend. He was all happy until he put it on and discovered that it was actually a cursed item - a girdle of gender-swapping.
This shows that a player used a personal sense to glean information from the GM that something was "up".

Natasha wrote:The likelihood of this being rules lawyer depends entirely on the character being played. An impulsive or terrified character is likely to shoot in the dark. If the character is likely to behave one way and doesn't, the player is suspect.

An impulsive, terrified character wouldn't shoot at the fleeing enemy though - which is more in-line with the situation described.

Natasha wrote:I also know it's difficult not to screen meta-knowledge when choosing your character's actions all the time.

The biggest difference between good meta-knowledge and bad meta-knowledge is if you can turn it into in-game knowledge.

They had an example of how this could be done on WotC's website once (in their "what's a GM to do?" section).
(This isn't an exact example, but it's pretty close)
Player: "There must be a switch to activate the bridge - Harry (the GM) wouldn't design a dungeon without one!" Bad use of meta-game knowledge.

Player: "There must be a switch to activate the bridge. The dwarves the wizard said used to live here wouldn't make a bridge without one!" Good use of meta-game knowledge, as it was turned into in-game knowledge.

That's meta-game.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:I'm not sure how I did it, but I managed to only post a sentence of my post.

Dog_O_War wrote:The rules lay out the guidelines on what a person can and cannot do in a game. I can't just say, "I jump to the moon!" and expect it to work; the rules disallow this because of mechanics, setting, and verisimilitude.

Actually a character can expect to jump to the moon.

Never said that. I said that he'd expect it to work.

The character expect that, too.
The player can have no such expectation whatsoever.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Therefore a reminder is offered about the other situation, and that if their character can do as such, then it is only fair to assume that this character can also do the same.

That doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me. Perhaps we have different definition of "rules lawyer".

Tell that to my GM.

Ok. Just don't make me look foolish by not giving me all the info up front about it. Pointing out a GM's misstep doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me, and I'll tell that to anybody you ask me to.

Dog_O_War wrote:Reading a pre-made adventure to know what will happen next.

And he'll be able to argue that, or any of the special rules that the module defines.

Dog_O_War wrote:This shows that a player used a personal sense to glean information from the GM that something was "up".

I suspect that he used his extensive knowledge of the rules to realise that it's best to dish this thing off onto somebody else because he knows just how "up" things go. Even if the character is aware of cursed magical loot that specific decision was driven by meta-gaming (reads cue from GM) and rules lawyering (uses knowledge of rules to act on cue). And if the girdle turned out not to be cursed, I wonder how that player would have reacted?

And the GM's a meta-gamer, too?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:The likelihood of this being rules lawyer depends entirely on the character being played. An impulsive or terrified character is likely to shoot in the dark. If the character is likely to behave one way and doesn't, the player is suspect.

An impulsive, terrified character wouldn't shoot at the fleeing enemy though - which is more in-line with the situation described.

All depends from the character. Is his impulsiveness expressed with a trigger finger or with hesitance?

Dog_O_War wrote:Player: "There must be a switch to activate the bridge. The dwarves the wizard said used to live here wouldn't make a bridge without one!" Good use of meta-game knowledge, as it was turned into in-game knowledge.

Hm. How is an in-character conversation with a wizard meta-knowledge?

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Never said that. I said that he'd expect it to work.

The character expect that, too.
The player can have no such expectation whatsoever.

The player is the one with the expectation when there is no rules to govern how a world is to be interacted with.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Tell that to my GM.

Ok. Just don't make me look foolish by not giving me all the info up front about it. Pointing out a GM's misstep doesn't sound like rules lawyering to me, and I'll tell that to anybody you ask me to.

Sorry; the point of my statement wasn't to make you look foolish.
The point was though that definitions differ, and that while you might not think of it as being a rules-lawyer, there are many who do. That I'd keep a mental log of such events of arbitration seemed like I was "exploiting a loop-hole" as far as the situation was concerned. In actuality, I only wanted fair treatment (the GM in question was showing favoratism to a couple of players).

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Reading a pre-made adventure to know what will happen next.

And he'll be able to argue that, or any of the special rules that the module defines.

Actually, he'll be able to avoid traps without search-checks, and know what item is needed to appease an NPC without actually role-playing out the encounter. The rules have nothing to do with it, as you can't just roll a skill against an NPC whenever you want to succeed at a given task.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:This shows that a player used a personal sense to glean information from the GM that something was "up".

I suspect that he used his extensive knowledge of the rules to realise that it's best to dish this thing off onto somebody else because he knows just how "up" things go. Even if the character is aware of cursed magical loot that specific decision was driven by meta-gaming (reads cue from GM) and rules lawyering (uses knowledge of rules to act on cue). And if the girdle turned out not to be cursed, I wonder how that player would have reacted?

The character wanted a girdle of giants' strength; that he passed it on to another character was suspicious.
As to the rules; cursed items are rare and not he standard. If the girdle wasn't cursed, he'd have just given up his chance at a wanted item. The situation itself didn't involve any rules-lawyering in that no rules were questioned or exploited.

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:The likelihood of this being rules lawyer depends entirely on the character being played. An impulsive or terrified character is likely to shoot in the dark. If the character is likely to behave one way and doesn't, the player is suspect.

An impulsive, terrified character wouldn't shoot at the fleeing enemy though - which is more in-line with the situation described.

All depends from the character. Is his impulsiveness expressed with a trigger finger or with hesitance?

No; it's often a "well I roll good (as impossible as it is to quantify this), so I'm going to shoot".

Natasha wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Player: "There must be a switch to activate the bridge. The dwarves the wizard said used to live here wouldn't make a bridge without one!" Good use of meta-game knowledge, as it was turned into in-game knowledge.

Hm. How is an in-character conversation with a wizard meta-knowledge?

The wizard didn't state that the dwarves would leave a switch; he only stated that a specific type of dwarf had built this place. Since it's fair to assume that the people who built the underground area were normal, logical people and not crazy followers of some occult god, he's turned his meta-knowledge into a fair reasoning on why there'd be a switch.

All fair enough, Dog. I'll fall back on my misfortune.

The last one still kinda nags at me though. Such situations are only logical when they are. How's that for a circle?
What I mean is, let's say a character simply knows that there is a subterranean race called dwarves but nothing about their construction technique. Then it's not a logical conclusion to say such things about dwarves because he wouldn't know it. It is logical that there's a switch, however. This isn't the best example, but let's consider it a mechanical illustration of the problem.

Dog_O_War wrote:As for the various rules lawyers comments; Jesterzzn is accurate in that this is how the term is used. Unfortunately it's branded on other people who he's acknowledged are not rules lawyers, but people who play by the rules - good or ill. That enough of us are labelled as such means that the definition is now wrong; it means more along what Killer Cyborg has stated.

No, someone who plays by the rules, for good or ill, is a good player. A rules-lawyer is someone who exploits the rules to their own benefit.

The differance between the two is the rules-lawyer will be the one who complains when the GM uses the same tactics against him.

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:As for the various rules lawyers comments; Jesterzzn is accurate in that this is how the term is used. Unfortunately it's branded on other people who he's acknowledged are not rules lawyers, but people who play by the rules - good or ill. That enough of us are labelled as such means that the definition is now wrong; it means more along what Killer Cyborg has stated.

No, someone who plays by the rules, for good or ill, is a good player. A rules-lawyer is someone who exploits the rules to their own benefit.

The differance between the two is the rules-lawyer will be the one who complains when the GM uses the same tactics against him.

Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit; I often have the the most statistically superior character at the table. Not to mention I can and do come up with legit uses of items spells, and abilities no one else (including the GM) thought of. Everything I do though is within the rules, and I never let a penalty against my character go uncounted, and even go as far as to not allow meta-game knowledge allow for a rules-lawyering event to occur for myself. Even if I'm not running the game, I still impose a fair and just rule over all involved.

I never let another player to mis-use a rule to beat a monster, even if it means my death (which has happened occationally); at the same time if there exists a superior combat form or some such that I currently wish to exploit as an "I win" button, I do so without hesitation. I won't break the setting or the game with a rules-exploit (such as infinite cash or free exp.), but I will bend and twist the situations that arrise to my will.

Do I qualify for the "rules-lawyer title?" By definition - yes I do (that's rules-lawyering for you). But does that title fit the hows and whys of my rules-lawyering? No - not by a long-shot.

Shazam wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Shazam wrote:Gee havent you guys ever used an inter continental balistic cow? I mean as a GM I run the games for the enjoyment of the players. Having a rules lawyer denotes some sort of us vs them mentality.

No.

And hearing about that stuff makes me think that the game wasn't worth playing in. No offense, but if the GM has to resort to that type of childish cheezery the game couldn't be very good. Besides that, the very words evoke a mental image that breaks both the theme of the game and the verisimilitude created by the GM.

Hmm perhaps I should explain myself the cow is a latent never used threat that is directed at rollplay as opposed to roleplay. It is perhaps here where I should make my point. Rules lawyers work only in rollplay and wargaming, in my books this is not roleplaying. (Also i think the cow matches the verisimilitude of some rollplay antics.)

For example Johnny makes the best fighter in the game by exploiting some rule..... how do I stop it? Easy

Johnny I dont agree with that interpretation.


Furthermore yes there are bad GMs but this is an overall thing and inevitably you end up gaming with the people you like to game with or share a very simmilar style.

Understood.

Killer Cyborg wrote:When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

And then I boot the Rules Lawyer through the door.

Dog_O_War wrote:When it comes down to it - a rules lawyer does exploit the rules for their own benefit; but that's not something to be taken as a bad thing, nor to be used as a derrogatory.

Any player who "exploits the rules for their own benefit" is the walking definition of a Bad Player and no GM should ever tolerate their presence at any game table.

Dog_O_War wrote:Besides this, a rules loop-hole that isn't fixed deserves to be exploited.

This is EXACTLY why Rules Lawyers deserve every ounce of disgust from the rest of the gaming community.


NOTE TO GMs:
There are FAR more players out there than there are GMs. We outnumber them by 5:1 and often much more. If you are a GM, don't tolerate immature behavior or confrontational noise from any player. "But its in the book!" should be their last words as your door shuts in their face.

Believe it or not, these players can be booted and easily replaced. Crappy players think they are irreplacable, but in reality, they are 110% expendable and your game will profit when they are gone. Kick them to the curb!

There are lots and lots of players out there who would LOVE to escape the Rules Lawyers and play at a table with people who want to have fun and enjoy the game. The small effort necessary to find (and maybe teach) new players will be paid back tenfold when you can enjoy a table without a single Rules Lawyer or Metagamer sitting there.

This has been my hard rule for two decades and my table is always full of players and they often thank me for my zero tolerance of foolishness.

Well if they're friends or spouses you might try rehabbing them; a little tolerance is on order then.
Otherwise, yea.

Spinachcat wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

And then I boot the Rules Lawyer through the door.

Sounds like you don't offer fair play. I don't imagine that your foot would actually connect with any buttocks given the speed those of use that do enjoy a fair game would be leaving at

Spinachcat wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:When it comes down to it - a rules lawyer does exploit the rules for their own benefit; but that's not something to be taken as a bad thing, nor to be used as a derrogatory.

Any player who "exploits the rules for their own benefit" is the walking definition of a Bad Player and no GM should ever tolerate their presence at any game table.

Wrong. A bad player is so much more than this. I mean seriously; do you expect the players to be using the rules to their disadvantage? That is what you're implying with this comment.

Spinachcat wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Besides this, a rules loop-hole that isn't fixed deserves to be exploited.

This is EXACTLY why Rules Lawyers deserve every ounce of disgust from the rest of the gaming community.

Or it could be seen and taken for what it is; a gross mis-step that needs a fix.

Spinachcat wrote:NOTE TO GMs:
There are FAR more players out there than there are GMs. We outnumber them by 5:1 and often much more. If you are a GM, don't tolerate immature behavior or confrontational noise from any player. "But its in the book!" should be their last words as your door shuts in their face.

NOTE TO GMs
The above blurb is for those GMs that prefer to control and exert power over players because they don't have any actual power or control of their own lives.
If you offer a fair game, and are true to your words - a reminder of a rule is no reason to be vindictive and boot a player for checking your ego, especially if you agreed to that rule. A fair player (even a rules-lawyer) can and does understand the need for arbitration; if the arbitrary ruling cannot be explained right at that moment (as it was an effect or test you were trying), then say that there is a reason for this change which will be explained after.

A wise player can understand this, even if they aren't mature.

Spinachcat wrote:Believe it or not, these players can be booted and easily replaced. Crappy players think they are irreplacable, but in reality, they are 110% expendable and your game will profit when they are gone. Kick them to the curb!

NOTE TO GMs
Earning the title of a tyrant quickly dries the well - be careful how often you dip.

Spinachcat wrote:There are lots and lots of players out there who would LOVE to escape the Rules Lawyers and play at a table with people who want to have fun and enjoy the game. The small effort necessary to find (and maybe teach) new players will be paid back tenfold when you can enjoy a table without a single Rules Lawyer or Metagamer sitting there.

NOTE TO GMs
Product not as advertised*
*Yes there are many players that would love to escape a rules-lawyer.
There are also many players that would love to escape a meta-gamer.
They are not, however always one in the same. As well, for every meta-
gamer, there is a loud "true roleplayer" at the table that would rather die
and sand-bag the game with foolishly stupid actions just to prove their
"non-meta-gamey" ways. As well, for every rules-lawyer there is a guy
that doesn't know a single rule, and never-ever learns them. Ever.
Finally, if you do finally manage to run into a non-rules-lawyer/meta-gamer,
there is still the chance they are a dice-cheat, "math-magician" (those
that tabulate bonuses and such that don't exist), inappropriate-setting
player (those who are "gangsta" in a medival setting, etc...), and
captain "I wanna make a new character every session!"
That you may be stuck with a rules-lawyer or a meta-gamer is usually the
least of your concerns, as these two are the easiest to control and counter.
Buyer beware - from your friendly neighbourhood fair-rules-lawyer
~woof

Ugh! Can I just say something about this supposed rollplay/roleplay dichotomy?

The whole thing that makes roleplay any different to ad lib acting is that mechanics are involved. If you have shunned mechanics use, as in effective use/getting the right numbers to stack, then your not 'roleplaying, as opposed to rollplaying' - your just ad lib acting. Just like you might say "Oh, HE is just wargaming" the same can be said of you if your all talk during play "YOUR just ad lib acting".

For roleplay to actually be any different from ad lib acting, the numbers integrate into the imagined space, and yes, sometimes the numbers control where the story goes, for awhile. Why do that? Because the numbers can take your story in a direction you as a group never would have thought of otherwise. Letting the numbers take control can get you out of a rut.

And frankly, when it's all just talk and "We ignore the numbers in favour of the story!", these seem to create the biggest ruts of all.

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

Spinachcat wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

And then I boot the Rules Lawyer through the door.

YEah, that's real mature.
"How dare you point out what the rules are!?"

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

See, by that definition, I'm not a rules lawyer.
And I don't believe that I've ever met one during 2+ decades of gaming.

Spinachcat wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:When the GM or another player doesn't know the rules, the rules lawyer steps in and lets them know what the rules are.

And then I boot the Rules Lawyer through the door.

Dog_O_War wrote:When it comes down to it - a rules lawyer does exploit the rules for their own benefit; but that's not something to be taken as a bad thing, nor to be used as a derrogatory.

Any player who "exploits the rules for their own benefit" is the walking definition of a Bad Player and no GM should ever tolerate their presence at any game table.

Dog_O_War wrote:Besides this, a rules loop-hole that isn't fixed deserves to be exploited.

This is EXACTLY why Rules Lawyers deserve every ounce of disgust from the rest of the gaming community.


NOTE TO GMs:
There are FAR more players out there than there are GMs. We outnumber them by 5:1 and often much more. If you are a GM, don't tolerate immature behavior or confrontational noise from any player. "But its in the book!" should be their last words as your door shuts in their face.

Believe it or not, these players can be booted and easily replaced. Crappy players think they are irreplacable, but in reality, they are 110% expendable and your game will profit when they are gone. Kick them to the curb!

There are lots and lots of players out there who would LOVE to escape the Rules Lawyers and play at a table with people who want to have fun and enjoy the game. The small effort necessary to find (and maybe teach) new players will be paid back tenfold when you can enjoy a table without a single Rules Lawyer or Metagamer sitting there.

This has been my hard rule for two decades and my table is always full of players and they often thank me for my zero tolerance of foolishness.

I've been a gamer for about 3 decades, and a gm for about two and... all I can say is, if you want to play it this way, make sure everyone has a copy of your house-rules.
That way they can review how things work in your game.
Rules are mostly there to set a standard of play, the way I see it, and I always am courteous enough to my players when I run a game as to let them know how I define ambiguous rules, which of two or more conflicting rules I use, and what my house-rules are when something isn't covered.
Nor do I have so fragile an ego that I throw someone out who corrects me when I'm wrong.
A GM isn't a god.
A GM is as fallible as anyone else.
In fact, crappy GMS are also easily replaced.
That refers to all of the railroaders, egomaniacs, and those who make their players sit through their verbose narcisism.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

See, by that definition, I'm not a rules lawyer.
And I don't believe that I've ever met one during 2+ decades of gaming.

Agreed.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

See, by that definition, I'm not a rules lawyer.
And I don't believe that I've ever met one during 2+ decades of gaming.

Agreed.

Seconded - Motion passed!


Next case

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

See, by that definition, I'm not a rules lawyer.
And I don't believe that I've ever met one during 2+ decades of gaming.

Then you are most fortunate...
I have stumbled across more than my fair share of "true rules lawyers" in my 3+ decades of the hobby. (perhaps its a regional thing?).

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Wrong. I too "exploit" the rules for my own benefit

Do you cry like a baby if the GM does the same thing to you? If the answer is "No" then you are not a rules-lawyer. The very definition of rules-lawyer is meant to be insulting.

See, by that definition, I'm not a rules lawyer.
And I don't believe that I've ever met one during 2+ decades of gaming.

Then you are most fortunate...
I have stumbled across more than my fair share of "true rules lawyers" in my 3+ decades of the hobby. (perhaps its a regional thing?).

Well, as far as I know, Dog_O_War, Vrykolas2k and I all live in different regions.
Maybe you just picked a particularly bad one?

Ajax wrote:I save my naggings for when the GM starts making changes to the system, atleast until he explains fully how the new changes work.

Certainly seems fair to me.