Forums of the Megaverse®

flatline wrote:Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

Giant2005 wrote:I have been in a game where someone translated the Invulnerability tattoo into the Immortality tattoo. When it was in use, they were impervious to all physical harm. The GM did not realize the mistake. Are you saying that such a misue of the rules should go uncontested? How is that fair to the players that made their characters assuming the RAW and didn't make use of an immortality power?
If the rules aren't enforced (even if they are established as house rules) those that obey the rules are forever handicapped when compared to those who ignore them. How can a game be balanced when people are playing by different rules?
You might suggest adapting to the misinterpretations and using them just the same but more often than not, it is too late for that. Most of a character's abilities are granted at creation. If it comes to light that due to ignorance of the rules certain abilities are more powerful than they should be, a player that had no knowledge of that at creation is more than likely forever unable to make that same exploit.
Enforcing established rules promotes order. The chaos resulting from players being able to do as they please regardless of the rules is surely far more disruptive than sharing your knowledge with your fellow players.

flatline wrote:Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Akashic Soldier wrote:No because that is the GM's job.

And more often than not Rules Lawyers are more about what you can't do than what you can. They generally roll their eyes during cinematic scenes, complain about how it's impossible character A defeated character B, or remind players they can't do things like roll forward and uppercut the enemy without rolling their acrobatics successfully (or reminding them they flatly can't without it).

Basicly, it's annoying. Follow the rules, teach your fellow players, but don't dictate the rules at the game table--it's disruptive.

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

flatline wrote:Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

Zamion138 wrote:some one mentioned a 5 minute encounter...i found that funny in its self, combat is never that fast hehehe
that said rules are great and if its something that looks cool or makes the players happy, like garroting some ones held off silently while hanging upside down and such cool....but rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

Zamion138 wrote:rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.

Giant2005 wrote:Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

Incriptus wrote:The 'bad' rules lawyers are those people who only accept the letter of the law, rather than the spirt of the law.

DhAkael wrote:So no, rules lawyers are a hated and reviled subspecies of troll that are to be hunted from under rocks when found, and subjected to intense sunlight until they turn to stone.

flatline wrote:Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

No because that is the GM's job.

Zamion138 wrote:but rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

Dog_O_War wrote:
1. People who themselves do not know the rules, and cannot be bothered to learn them. (ignorance)
2. People who tried to learn the rules, but got discouraged because the game they want to play is infact complicated, so just stopped part-way through (half-assed)
3. People who want to be "epic" all the time without having to actually earn their "epicness". (indolent)
4. People who do not like to follow rules. (arses)

If you feel I've missed any, please feel free to add them.

jaymz wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:
1. People who themselves do not know the rules, and cannot be bothered to learn them. (ignorance)
2. People who tried to learn the rules, but got discouraged because the game they want to play is infact complicated, so just stopped part-way through (half-assed)
3. People who want to be "epic" all the time without having to actually earn their "epicness". (indolent)
4. People who do not like to follow rules. (arses)

If you feel I've missed any, please feel free to add them.

5 - people who by and large follow the rules but have some houserules that differ from the rules as written and don't want to repeatedly argue with the guy who wants to only play by the rules as written

Zamion138 wrote:Id say people that like rule lawyers are infact one of them and are the people want everyone the same cuase they don't have fun if they aren't some how the center of attention. Be it in postive or negative light. If the gm say say your hit....you reply damn im dead and they don't want the game to end like that so they add in something like ...well I suppose the attack actualy hit you in the arm and that just got lopped off and you drop to the ground.
they are oviusly not going by the rules, they are not cheating the other players. But when dice add or subtract its always possible to get lucky or unlucky as it may be and kinda ruin the rest of that players or the groups whole night if they don't break the rules. But I suppose that's ignorance and stupidity and sloth speaking.

SamtheDagger wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

SamtheDagger wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

Nightmask wrote:

SamtheDagger wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

B.A. actually said 'sorry but no regular turnip can do, it has to be special turnips grown by this particular village' after Brian tried with the regular turnips. Still not the best solution (since he should have known his group would just conquer the village for the 'super turnips') but he didn't make it quite that easy.

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

That is fine the Rules Lawyers I don't like are the ones that derail the GM's authority or rather try to. "That couldn't happen because it clearly states here that this can only happen." "Hey that type of creature can't do that." The second one is especially irratating in game when your trying to use a robotic version of something that can do what it is doing but the natural creature can't and none of the group have ever ran into either before. So the Freaking rules lawyer is using player knowledge. So I guess that is the real reason, in an attempt to keep the GM adhering to the rules the rules lawyer will often apply player knowledge which will then alert the players and taint their knowledge.
Player 1: "Uh... is it a real one?"
GM: @RL "Damn it you idiot sit down and shut up." @ P1: "Yes as far as you know."
RL: "It couldn't be because a real one can only jump 20' and you just said it jumped 100'."
P1: "So it's not real, so it must be... a gay robot?"
GM: "Yes Caboose." @RL "LEAVE NOW"
RL: "What? I was just trying to help."
GM: [point]
RL: [look blankly]
GM: [point to door sternly glaring at RL]
RL: "What?"
GM: [Picks up handful of punishment dice (metal six siders)]
RL: "Uh... I got to get up early tomorrow so I'm gonna..."
GM: [pulls arm back]
RL: "Run, bye"
GM: [chucking dice] "You take six d six damage!!"
RL: [running for front door] "oww. oww. oww, my eye."
P1: "I think it was only three d six but one was a critical"
RL: "I'm suing."
GM: "Go figure. Hey come back when you can see straight."

Giant2005 wrote:If he thinks violence is okay, I wouldn't play

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

It takes two or more people to argue for 5 minutes.
Unless you're dealing with situations where there are two or more rules lawyers arguing amongst themselves, then I'd say that they're not the only problem.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

It takes two or more people to argue for 5 minutes.
Unless you're dealing with situations where there are two or more rules lawyers arguing amongst themselves, then I'd say that they're not the only problem.

there were some other underlining issues between a couple of players, so i just sit back eat pizza and had a couple of beer and watch the show.

Giant2005 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

That is fine the Rules Lawyers I don't like are the ones that derail the GM's authority or rather try to. "That couldn't happen because it clearly states here that this can only happen." "Hey that type of creature can't do that." The second one is especially irratating in game when your trying to use a robotic version of something that can do what it is doing but the natural creature can't and none of the group have ever ran into either before. So the Freaking rules lawyer is using player knowledge. So I guess that is the real reason, in an attempt to keep the GM adhering to the rules the rules lawyer will often apply player knowledge which will then alert the players and taint their knowledge.
Player 1: "Uh... is it a real one?"
GM: @RL "Damn it you idiot sit down and shut up." @ P1: "Yes as far as you know."
RL: "It couldn't be because a real one can only jump 20' and you just said it jumped 100'."
P1: "So it's not real, so it must be... a gay robot?"
GM: "Yes Caboose." @RL "LEAVE NOW"
RL: "What? I was just trying to help."
GM: [point]
RL: [look blankly]
GM: [point to door sternly glaring at RL]
RL: "What?"
GM: [Picks up handful of punishment dice (metal six siders)]
RL: "Uh... I got to get up early tomorrow so I'm gonna..."
GM: [pulls arm back]
RL: "Run, bye"
GM: [chucking dice] "You take six d six damage!!"
RL: [running for front door] "oww. oww. oww, my eye."
P1: "I think it was only three d six but one was a critical"
RL: "I'm suing."
GM: "Go figure. Hey come back when you can see straight."

Wow.
I know all of the above was in jest but that GM sounds like a monster to me.
In game he is god. Out of game, not so much.
If his god complex exists out of game to the degree that he thinks violence is okay, I wouldn't play there even if it was someone else he was throwing dice at. He can GM his cats - something about that story suggests to me that GM has a whole lot of cats...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

A GM no matter how well he knows the rules is never a rules lawyer.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

A GM no matter how well he knows the rules is never a rules lawyer.

Except for the fact that I now expect all GMs to do the same thing, due to aforementioned bad GM.

SamtheDagger wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:To know the rules? Or to not know the rules? I'm going to assume you mean you expect all GM's to know all the rules. But my point is if the GM is clueless then they're just a bad GM, if a GM shoots from the hip then they're just flexible... sometimes, if a GM is a real stickler for the rules that doesn't make them a rules lawyer, if a GM is a stickler for the rules reguardless of the players not enjoying the game... then we're back to bad GM.

^^Truth this.

flatline wrote:The best combat is story driven without dice.

Nothing has the potential to make the night go down hill like the words "okay, everybody roll initiative".

--flatline

flatline wrote:

SamtheDagger wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:To know the rules? Or to not know the rules? I'm going to assume you mean you expect all GM's to know all the rules. But my point is if the GM is clueless then they're just a bad GM, if a GM shoots from the hip then they're just flexible... sometimes, if a GM is a real stickler for the rules that doesn't make them a rules lawyer, if a GM is a stickler for the rules reguardless of the players not enjoying the game... then we're back to bad GM.

^^Truth this.

The corollary of that is that a good GM applies the rules or wings it according to the pace of the game play. Yeah

The best combat is story driven without dice. Mmm... depends

Nothing has the potential to make the night go down hill like the words "okay, everybody roll initiative". disagree

--flatline

Killer Cyborg wrote:That depends on what the GM wants to do.
If a GM wants to insert house rules and/or modify existing rules in a consistent way, then I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
If, on the other hand, the GM continually changes and modifies the rules from one thing to another over the course of an adventure or campaign, then I disagree.