New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 130
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default It takes two to rules lawyer.

    So whenever I see a list of "tips for good gaming" it always includes instructions not to rules lawyer. But in my experiance it is never so simple, it normally goes like this:

    Player A takes an action.
    Player B believes that action is against the rules and says something.
    Player A defends their position.

    Then they argue for a bit before grabbing a rulebook.

    Then one of three things happens:
    1 The rule is clear and the argument is resolved.

    2 The rule is ambigious and the argument continues.

    3 One of the people simply refuses to admit the possibility that were wrong by either refusing to look at the book, or using tortured logic to justify their position, or they simply resort to threats like "its my house" "its my book" "im the dm and i say so" or "you are a rules lawyer and i refuse to achnowledge rules lawyers".


    So in this scenario who is the rules lawyer? A or B? Is it whoever is right? Is it whoever is wrong? Whoever gives in first? Whoever gives in last?

    Now, a lot of people will simple fall back to DM authority, but DMs are fallible human beings too, they can both get the rules wrong and be pedantic twits just like the rest of us.

    My previous terrible DM found my core only human fighter to be OP and would constantly make up rules (which he insisted were RAW) to nullify my abilities and then refused to hear any argument from a rules lawyer like me.
    On the other hand I constantly here people talk about how rules stickler DMs are bad and that they should always let players abilities work kf they follow the "rule of cool".
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    The one using tortured logic to justify their position is the rules lawyer, because that's what a rules lawyer is.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    The rule of cool isn't really about circumventing rules lawyering, as I understand it. It's more about not letting the rulebook be a wet blanket when everybody around the table wants something to work.

    As stated, rules lawyering is when someone starts using tortured logic to defend their interpretation of the rules.

    I'm okay with the GM settling any rules arguments. Sure, he's human and fallible, but he tends to have fairly good system mastery and is the one in charge of the setting's unity to begin with.
    It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    where the wind blows

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Also, I learned from experience that it's often important to let rule debate go, for the sake of the game's flow. You can research it later after the game for next session or something, but a dm must be able to quickly settle something rather than pausing the fight for 45 minutes while everyone search for things on books or debate on which interpretation is correct. I consider it one of the more important thing that a good gm must do, and the thing that everyone in the game must understand, besides things like having everyone on the same page on the game's genre and deadliness level.
    You got Magic Mech in My Police Procedural!
    In this forum, Gaming is Serious Business, and Anyone Can Die. Not even your status as the Ensemble Darkhorse can guarantee your survival.

    Disciple of GITP Trope-Fu Temple And Captain of GITP Valkyrie Squadron.
    Spoiler
    Show


    The OTP in the playground.
    Awesome Elizabeth Shelley by Hollamer
    My Gallery/My Star Wolves 3 LP

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xuc Xac View Post
    The one using tortured logic to justify their position is the rules lawyer, because that's what a rules lawyer is.
    I would disagree with this position. The rules laywer is the one who knows (or thinks he knows) the rules well enough to call it when other people deviate from the correct rules, hence player B in this case.
    A good rules laywer will try not to interrupt the flow of the game, possibly not saying anything until later, or just murmurring something like "are you sure that is the correct rule?" but will also be ready and willing to respond to any query as to the correct rules.
    A bad rules laywer is one who interrupts the flow of the game and argues with the DM halting play.

    Good rules laywers can be a real boon to a party as they can be far quicker to ask than referencing the rulebooks for the more obscurely positioned rules.

    The players who twist the rules to achieve what they want can be either good or bad rules laywers (or neither), but are probably powergamers.
    Last edited by Khedrac; 2017-07-15 at 03:13 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    There are no good rules lawyers. A rules lawyer isn't just someone who knows the rules well. Describing such a person as "a good rules lawyer" is like calling a judge a "good criminal".

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2008

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    A lawyer interprets laws. Lawyers are not by definition "good" or "bad;" these are labels derived from behavior.

    The rules lawyer can, therefore, be "good" or "bad" just as his namesake can. A player knowledgeable enough about the rules of the game to be trusted by the rest of the group to interpret them is thus a "rules lawyer" and in fact can be handy to have around as it reduces the need for tedious page-flipping. The problem comes when someone thinks he knows the game well enough to do this and does so without prompting. The good lawyer speaks when consulted; the bad chases ambulances with the devil's tongue.

    That there are some people who believe that rules lawyering is inherently malicious speaks to poor experience with the latter sort of player.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    The rules lawyer is someone who always calls out others or the DM on rules violations or misuses and is a stickler for rules being followed by-the-book (even if they aren't the DM). Some of them just want the rules to always be followed consistently, others will be trying to use their rules knowledge to find power-gamer combos and loop holes and will argue for RAW so they can use them.

    Someone could suggest that a rule has been violated without necessarily being a rules lawyer, if it is only an occasional thing. Someone who regularly does this could qualify as a rules lawyer, though this is not necessarily bad if the other players and DM are really shaky on the rules.

    As soon as a rules question arises, the DM should either look up the rule or make a ruling and the argument should be over. If you're a player, it does no good to argue with the DM, even if you're absolutely certain you are correct about the rule in the book. Let it go and bring it up after the game.

    If you're the DM, if you decide to make a ruling without consulting the book it would be diplomatic and polite to suggest that the issue be tabled in order to keep the game going but it will be looked up later. Unless the rule is going to cause a character death or completely change the outcome of something important, let it slide and take it up later. If a rules lawyer is constantly stopping the game with rules citations, to the extent that it is disrupting play or becoming annoying to everyone, politely tell them to hold their concerns until afterward unless something like a character's life is on the line.
    Don't just say "I'm the DM, so I make the rules and you shut up". Even if it's true, that's a bad attitude that causes conflict. A game never warrants being rude like that.

  9. - Top - End - #9

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    At least in my experience, the term "rules lawyer" refers to a person who tries to use the letter of the rule to subvert the intent of the rule.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SoCal
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    A rules lawyer enters a room filled with gamers and starts doing his rules lawyer thing. Then an idiot enters the room and says "it takes two to rules lawyer". Finally a jerk comes into the room and documents it then posts it on line.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xuc Xac View Post
    There are no good rules lawyers. A rules lawyer isn't just someone who knows the rules well. Describing such a person as "a good rules lawyer" is like calling a judge a "good criminal".
    This agrees with my understanding of the term.

    A person who knows the rules, and knows how to apply the rules to good effect, is a skilled player.

    Skilled players can disagree about the rules -- it's quite possible for one or more people to be just plain wrong, without any malice or trickery intended on either side. This sort of disagreement can be easily resolved through research and discussion.

    Disagreement is not the same as rules-lawyering.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Well, I'm a self-proclaimed rules layer. But I'm very much against the notion of torturing logic to defend a position - to me, the only position worth defending is the logical one.

    I often rules lawyer in ways that are disadvantageous to my character, as I have more of a vested interest in the logic and continuity of the game than I do in my character's success on a given action. Few things are worse than the taste of a falsely earned victory.

    Now, I also happen to enjoy a good rules debate, and am sad that it takes two to rules lawyer. If I could rules lawyer in a CRPG, I might not need you bloody humans any more to get my RPG fix.

    But, yes, I hate it when GMs have a position they insist on holding despite all logic to the contrary. That kind of rules lawyering I find unacceptable. Happily, these days, I usually only play with GMs who happily accept or even ask for advice from the players with good rules knowledge.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Nobody can rules-lawyer without the DM's complicity.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    So whenever I see a list of "tips for good gaming" it always includes instructions not to rules lawyer. But in my experiance it is never so simple, it normally goes like this:

    Player A takes an action.
    Player B believes that action is against the rules and says something.
    Player A defends their position.

    Then they argue for a bit before grabbing a rulebook.

    Then one of three things happens:
    1 The rule is clear and the argument is resolved.

    2 The rule is ambigious and the argument continues.

    3 One of the people simply refuses to admit the possibility that were wrong by either refusing to look at the book, or using tortured logic to justify their position, or they simply resort to threats like "its my house" "its my book" "im the dm and i say so" or "you are a rules lawyer and i refuse to achnowledge rules lawyers".


    So in this scenario who is the rules lawyer? A or B? Is it whoever is right? Is it whoever is wrong? Whoever gives in first? Whoever gives in last?

    Now, a lot of people will simple fall back to DM authority, but DMs are fallible human beings too, they can both get the rules wrong and be pedantic twits just like the rest of us.

    My previous terrible DM found my core only human fighter to be OP and would constantly make up rules (which he insisted were RAW) to nullify my abilities and then refused to hear any argument from a rules lawyer like me.
    On the other hand I constantly here people talk about how rules stickler DMs are bad and that they should always let players abilities work kf they follow the "rule of cool".
    I can only tell how I resolve this as a GM. I will make a ruling which almost never happens as I'm a stickler for rules but at least I will act as arbiter and judge the issue on the spot. After the game we can rummage through the rule books and discuss the rules but as a GM I usually decide the issue if the rules aren't clear enough and sometimes we come upon an agreement for a houserule that will be noted down.

    To change characters abilties as written in the rules is usually a bad form. Rules are the common ground for both player and GM on how the game is played and how the players can interact with the world within the scope of the game, changing them on the fly will lead to disgruntled players. If GM wants to change rules he should do so before the game starts so everybody is on the same page.

    Sometimes it happens if you have a mature group that all the players (GM included) come to an agreement that some power/spell/skill/rule or whatever is clearly overpowered or broken. In such a case it's best to come upon agreement how it should be adjusted or just removed from the game.
    Last edited by RazorChain; 2017-07-16 at 03:57 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    toulouse
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    thanks to these boards, nowadays, when i don't know who i'm playing with, i actually ask what will happen during rules debates in games during session 0. usually it falls into either:

    it's quick and somebody pulls out a rulebook.

    or:

    team vote for what happens and we'll sort it out properly during the debrief, changing our call if it's wrong.

    last time it happened, our resident half-ork paladin got thrown overboard and managed to grab on to a ballista. someone wondered if he'd take the ballista into the depths with him or not. no clear idea where to look, so we agreed he fell overboard and damaged the ballista. during the debrief, we checked and a 350lb weight would not have carried a 500lb bolted-to-the-deck ballista over a rail. so he left scratches in the woodwork, all in all a bit better long-term as a call.

    all this to say that we try to avoid bogging down the game with arguments during play. i've played with rules-lawyers that almost ended in blows being exchanged, and a couple where tears of rage were shed. i don't play pen and paper for this. i play it to have fun and to solve problems quickly.
    Spoiler: quotes
    Show
    regarding my choice of sustenance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Raimun View Post
    I'm going to judge you.
    My judgement is: That is awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by DigoDragon View Post
    GM: “If it doesn't move and it should, use duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use a shotgun.”
    dm is Miltonian, credit where credit is due.

    when in doubt,
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    A.) Rules Lawyer isn't a term with a largely agreed on definition. So you're going to have some trouble there, as I see you already are.

    B.) I think that the situation where Rules Lawyering is really a problem is if you're in a group or using a system where the DM/GM is viewed as a "referee" or "official" because then you're basically arguing with the judge after the ruling about their ruling, which is kind of a pointless thing to do and is generally seen as obtuse and even legally actionable.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Yeah, I think the lack of a solid definition for "rules lawyer" does create a lot of the confusion.

    Someone posted a link to this article in another thread: http://lookrobot.co.uk/11-ways-bette...-work-version/

    Which includes the following quote:

    "SIX. Know the system, don’t be a jerk about it.
    If you know a system, you are easier to GM for, because you know your character’s limitations. You can calculate the rough odds of a particular action succeeding or failing, just like in real life. You can make prompt assessments of situations and act accordingly, because you understand the rules of the world.
    (New players, of course, get a free pass on this one. But do make an effort to learn the rules, obviously, if you’re keen on sticking around in the hobby.)
    But for the love of God, don’t rules-lawyer. Do not do that. It is not hard to work out, because here is a simple guide – if you are arguing over a rule for more than twenty seconds, you are a rules lawyer. You are the Health and Safety Inspector of roleplaying games, and you need to stop talking, because you are sucking the fun out of the game.
    There are times when the rules are wrong, and that’s fine, but I’m hard-pressed to think of that time the guy remembered the rule and we all laughed and had a great time because he made the GM change it."

    Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    You go with the GM's.
    It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    You go with the GM's.
    Yeah, that's a common response, but in my mind "never question the GM," and "don't be a rules lawyer," are two completely separate things.

    Heck, I know plenty of DM's who are rules lawyers by the definitions that have been proffered upthread.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Yeah, I think the lack of a solid definition for "rules lawyer" does create a lot of the confusion.

    Someone posted a link to this article in another thread: http://lookrobot.co.uk/11-ways-bette...-work-version/

    Which includes the following quote:

    "SIX. Know the system, don’t be a jerk about it.
    If you know a system, you are easier to GM for, because you know your character’s limitations. You can calculate the rough odds of a particular action succeeding or failing, just like in real life. You can make prompt assessments of situations and act accordingly, because you understand the rules of the world.
    (New players, of course, get a free pass on this one. But do make an effort to learn the rules, obviously, if you’re keen on sticking around in the hobby.)
    But for the love of God, don’t rules-lawyer. Do not do that. It is not hard to work out, because here is a simple guide – if you are arguing over a rule for more than twenty seconds, you are a rules lawyer. You are the Health and Safety Inspector of roleplaying games, and you need to stop talking, because you are sucking the fun out of the game.
    There are times when the rules are wrong, and that’s fine, but I’m hard-pressed to think of that time the guy remembered the rule and we all laughed and had a great time because he made the GM change it."

    Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?
    Here's how your definition looks to me:

    • If someone punches you, and you fight back, then you're just as guilty of assault.

    • There is no such thing as self-defense: participation is identical to aggression.

    Can you see the similarities?



    Rules-lawyering requires that you are trying to get away with something. Usually something deceptive, marginal, or otherwise under-handed.

    Arguing about rules is not automatically rules-lawyering.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Here's how your definition looks to me:

    • If someone punches you, and you fight back, then you're just as guilty of assault.

    • There is no such thing as self-defense: participation is identical to aggression.

    Can you see the similarities?



    Rules-lawyering requires that you are trying to get away with something. Usually something deceptive, marginal, or otherwise under-handed.

    Arguing about rules is not automatically rules-lawyering.
    Do you mean my (Talakeal's) definition or the quoted definition?
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    It's kind of dark.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Which really got me thinking about the absolute prohibition against rules lawyering. It says not to argue for more than 20 seconds, but as the old saying goes "it takes two to argue," so even if both people agree to drop it after 20 seconds, whose interpretation do you then go with?
    The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

    This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

    Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.
    I say we can go where we want to, a place where they will never find. And we can act like we come from out of this world, leave the real one far behind. We can dance.

    The Adventures of Amber Yarrowhill, IC and OOC

    In the Hands of an Angry God June 2017 - November 2018. RIP.

    My Player Registry Entry

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by scalyfreak View Post
    The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

    This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

    Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.
    All I can say is that I wish I lived where you do.

    Around here everyone wants to GM and the real trouble is finding players, and when a DM's chair does open up their is a vicious struggle for control as everyone vies for the coveted position of GM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Yeah, that's a common response, but in my mind "never question the GM," and "don't be a rules lawyer," are two completely separate things.

    Heck, I know plenty of DM's who are rules lawyers by the definitions that have been proffered upthread.
    The GM is the person who everybody at the table agreed should run the game, either by saying he should, or implicitly by joining a game where that person is the GM.

    The GM is already responsible for ensuring the game is fair, or you can say feels satisfactory to play.

    If the GM is going to be such an ass, you have already been suffering his assitude in many ways besides rules lawyering.

    The GM, if he wants to, traditionally has the power to circumvent any rule he wishes.

    So I don't see why you should be wary to give him this power that is rather small and unimportant compared to all of his other powers.
    Last edited by Vitruviansquid; 2017-07-16 at 02:51 PM.
    It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by scalyfreak View Post
    The GM is always right. Because the GM is doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game for us.

    This is why the GM role attracts power-tripping control freaks who get their fun from having power over others. A good GM works with the players, not against them, and does his or her best to make sure that everyone in the group has fun, GM included. If that changes, a good GM will work with the players who are not having fun, to try and change things so that they do.

    Arguing with the GM about the rules, while the game is supposed to be moving on, is Bad Manners for players, and it ruins the fun for everyone else. During the game, let the GM make the ruling and live with the results. If you still disagree, have a civilized discussion with the GM about why you disagree, after the session is over.
    Indeed. The GM is the one person at the table who cannot simply be skipped over because they aren't paying attention. The put the most effort into playing the game (and make no mistake, they are playing too), and messing with them affects the whole group, by definition. Don't do it man.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    It's kind of dark.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    All I can say is that I wish I lived where you do.
    Why? We have internet. There is absolutely no reason to let geography limit who we play with.

    If you insist on playing with people who live where you do, be picky. Don't join games that have a GM you know will be a bad one. And if everyone else in the group thinks the GM is perfectly fine and you disagree, don't join that group either. (And if that happens with every single group you try to join, take a long and hard look at yourself and your behavior.)

    As the vetruvian squid has already spelled out, if your GM is a power-tripping jerk face, rules lawyering is going to be the least of your problems.
    Last edited by scalyfreak; 2017-07-16 at 02:59 PM.
    I say we can go where we want to, a place where they will never find. And we can act like we come from out of this world, leave the real one far behind. We can dance.

    The Adventures of Amber Yarrowhill, IC and OOC

    In the Hands of an Angry God June 2017 - November 2018. RIP.

    My Player Registry Entry

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    The GM is the person who everybody at the table agreed should run the game, either by saying he should, or implicitly by joining a game where that person is the GM.

    The GM is already responsible for ensuring the game is fair, or you can say feels satisfactory to play.

    If the GM is going to be such an ass, you have already been suffering his assitude in many ways besides rules lawyering.

    The GM, if he wants to, traditionally has the power to circumvent any rule he wishes.

    So I don't see why you should be wary to give him this power that is rather small and unimportant compared to all of his other powers.
    I just don't see games that way.

    I see a group of friends agreeing to play a game together as equals.

    My group generally plays "by the book" and decides on house rules by group vote rather than DM dictate, and that works just fine for us.

    I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to suddenly do whatever they want and anyone who questions their bad behavior is automatically in the wrong any more than me inviting you over to my house to play Chess means that I can suddenly declare any move you make which puts me in check to be illegal.


    Quote Originally Posted by scalyfreak View Post
    Why? We have internet. There is absolutely no reason to let geography limit who we play with.

    If you insist on playing with people who live where you do, be picky. Don't join games that have a GM you know will be a bad one. And if everyone else in the group thinks the GM is perfectly fine and you disagree, don't join that group either. (And if that happens with every single group you try to join, take a long and hard look at yourself and your behavior.)

    As the vetruvian squid has already spelled out, if your GM is a power-tripping jerk face, rules lawyering is going to be the least of your problems.
    No, I am saying I want to run an in person game but the ratio of DMs to players in my town massively in favor of the DMs so finding players is darn near impossible.

    And no, it isn't every game. In my experience DMs run the gamut from terribly bad to exceptionally good, and I would say most are "pretty good", its just that I have had 1 or 2 super horrible terror nightmare DMs which happen to generate 90% of my internet dialogue as things going fine isn't exactly a great talking point.

    But what I really don't understand is that is a DM is a "power-tripping jerk face" I am suddenly in the wrong for trying to talk some sense into them.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    It's kind of dark.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I really don't see why someone volunteering to by the DM means they get to suddenly do whatever they want and anyone who questions their bad behavior is automatically in the wrong any more than me inviting you over to my house to play Chess means that I can suddenly declare any move you make which puts me in check to be illegal.
    If you really can't see the different between a situation where a GM makes a ruling on a rules dispute in D&D, to a situation where a chess player deliberately ignores the rules of the game in order to stop you from winning a chess match, we have officially discovered the root of the problem.
    I say we can go where we want to, a place where they will never find. And we can act like we come from out of this world, leave the real one far behind. We can dance.

    The Adventures of Amber Yarrowhill, IC and OOC

    In the Hands of an Angry God June 2017 - November 2018. RIP.

    My Player Registry Entry

  29. - Top - End - #29

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    I have very little patience for that whole tired trope of the poor overworked GM slaving over a hot rulebook to make a campaign that his players will enjoy.

    If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. You're not doing me a favour by GMing any more than I'm doing you a favour by playing.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It takes two to rules lawyer.

    Quote Originally Posted by scalyfreak View Post
    If you really can't see the different between a situation where a GM makes a ruling on a rules dispute in D&D, to a situation where a chess player deliberately ignores the rules of the game in order to stop you from winning a chess match, we have officially discovered the root of the problem.
    When you phrase it that way, no they are not the same thing.

    But... well maybe they are.


    Ok, so the aforementioned terrible nightmare DM also ran a Warhammer League out of his house which he would invite people over to play.

    He had a list of "house rules" for his Warhammer League, one of which was "The Host (i.e. himself) settles all rules disputes".

    Which seems fair enough.

    But then when he was playing a match he would actually change the rules mid-game to help himself win. If you called him on it, he would say "So you are disputing the rules? Well then, I get to make a ruling, and my ruling is that the way I am currently playing is correct."

    Now, clearly this is not reasonable, right?

    However, when we played D&D he would do the EXACT same thing.

    What I don't see is why when the same person invites me over to play a game and does the exact same thing, if it is a tabletop game he is the jerk, but if it is an RPG it is the people who question his behavior that are the jerks.




    Generally I consider a rules lawyer to be someone who is a stickler for the technicalities of the rules to the point where he is correcting other people over inconsequential things at the expense of fun OR someone who is twisting the wording of the rules to gain some sort of ridiculous advantage in the game. In my mind these are behaviors that are not exclusive to a GMs or players.


    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    I have very little patience for that whole tired trope of the poor overworked GM slaving over a hot rulebook to make a campaign that his players will enjoy.

    If you don't enjoy GMing then don't GM. You're not doing me a favour by GMing any more than I'm doing you a favour by playing.
    I certainly agree here.

    Like I said, where I live the DMs practically have to beg the players to get a game going, if anything I am doing him a favor by agreeing to play in his game (and this cuts both ways, I would love to run a game and would be very grateful to have enough PCs to do it).



    Edit: You know what, I would also go so far as to say that someone who continues to argue with the Game Master over a ruling is also a third type of rules lawyer, provided that the ruling was indeed called for and made in good faith; i.e. an actual rules ambiguity came up during the game rather than the DM simply changing the rules on a whim to deny the player performing an action that they don't approve of / didn't anticipate.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2017-07-16 at 04:22 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •