Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[TechnoGothic]

I can be Rule-Lawyerish when I first join a new group. But I word my thoughts carefully as Questions during the game trying to see if the group has changed rules, modified rules or just ignore rules.

I really really really really hate other GMs who don't know the rules and just make stuff up instead of reading the rules in the mainbook. Anything not in the mainbook to me is Optional, and the GM does not have to know anything outside the mainbook. Knowledge of Mainbook rules is a must.

As a GM I do inform players i use a more "Megaversal" system than normal. I use rules from all the Palladium Gamelines and combine them into a unified whole. It just turns out to get the most of the rules, I use SDC/HP/AR/TD/DR rules from the sdc settings. It helps makes things more cinematic overall and i don't have to worry with Instant Death Results to disrupt the game.

If a PC character does get an "Instant Death" result somehow, I'm willing to let the character live for now and to finish the scene out, but will die afterwards in someones arms, sitting down on the throne in victory, or something else thst sounds cool at the time. But if anyone has resurrection spells handy...well who knows

[DhAkael]

I can be Rule-Lawyerish when I first join a new group. But I word my thoughts carefully as Questions during the game trying to see if the group has changed rules, modified rules or just ignore rules.

I really really really really hate other GMs who don't know the rules and just make stuff up instead of reading the rules in the mainbook. Anything not in the mainbook to me is Optional, and the GM does not have to know anything outside the mainbook. Knowledge of Mainbook rules is a must.

As a GM I do inform players i use a more "Megaversal" system than normal. I use rules from all the Palladium Gamelines and combine them into a unified whole. It just turns out to get the most of the rules, I use SDC/HP/AR/TD/DR rules from the sdc settings. It helps makes things more cinematic overall and i don't have to worry with Instant Death Results to disrupt the game.

If a PC character does get an "Instant Death" result somehow, I'm willing to let the character live for now and to finish the scene out, but will die afterwards in someones arms, sitting down on the throne in victory, or something else thst sounds cool at the time. But if anyone has resurrection spells handy...well who knows

*nods slowly* Fair enough. Honest opinion and statement.
I don't agree "completely" but yes, the GM should at least know the ORIGINAL core rules back and front before going about altering them for their own use.

[DhAkael]

I have nothing wrong with a GM who does not know the rules of the main book thoroughly, so long as he is consistent and reasonable. I have a tendency to make things up on the fly, but I know the rules of the game. Sometimes they just do not fit with an exciting and memorable scene. To me there is little difference between a GM who knows the rules and ignores them because they do not fit with adventure and a GM who does not know the rules and comes up with something that fits the adventure. As long as the GM is reasonable and the enjoyment of the players and advancement of the story is kept in mind, I could care less about adhering to the rules.

I understand that players have a certain expectation for rules to work in one form or fashion. But the rules should not rule the game. There are always going to be exceptions. And that is what the GM is there for. If a player comes up with something cool and clever, it should have a shot at working, even if that "shot" is only going to happen on a natural 20; at the very least the player should get experience for the idea. If a GM has grandiose plans for an adventure and a player exploits a rule that ends up spoiling that adventure early, it is perfectly reasonable for the GM to add a bit of extra challenge to keep things going, so long as everyone is having a good time. The rules are not meant to cover absolutely every eventuality of the game, but rather to provide a guideline to deal with your average, everyday situations. But great adventures are not made of only average, everyday situations. It is the exceptions that provide the true challenge, the intrigue, and the fantastic elements that make a game great.

Also argued / debated reasonably.
It is a nice change to the usual blood-in-water-among-sharks that forum debates tend to degenerate into.
Happy Krow is Happy

[TechnoGothic]

Remember the GOLDEN RULEs of rpgs

1) If you Don't Like something, change it.
2) HAVE FUN

[Giant2005]

Remember the GOLDEN RULEs of rpgs

1) If you Don't Like something, change it.
2) HAVE FUN

Those sound like the Golden Rules of life.

[Damian Magecraft]

GMs that don't conform to some consistent set of rules for adjudicating success and failure in the game are merely doing so to conveniently railroad the game. They aren't being flexible. Every comment in opposition to having set rules here has been in defense of having things go the way the GM wants. Gygax didn't like having many set rules, because he pretty much wanted to steer the game any which way he wanted it. If you want to play that way, then just write a story and get it over with, because the result is a foregone conclusion and the players don't matter anyway. They are just there to bask in your wonderful goodness. A game based upon GM fiat is not an RPG. It is story telling hour.

Gygax tell you that from the gave did he? you gamed with him have you? or are you just spouting opinion as if were fact and hoping no one is going to call you on it?
Games with the rules enforced by the players not the GM are not Roleplaying it is a power play nothing more. If you think you can run the system better then YOU GM! But then there is a reason Rules Lawyers seldom sit behind the Screen... no one wants to play with them as the GM and they know and are resentful of it and do what they can to undermine the GM through the recitation of the rules.
Rule Zero: The GM is the final arbiter of the rules.
Ever notice how Rules Lawyers always forget that one?

[Myrrhibis]

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

Amen

That's why the guy who trades off GMing duties w/ me & I get along (well, most of our group FTM) - when someone points out a rule contradiction (which may be honest brain-blank for the GM (or player) due to volume of RIFTS info), GM rules & you move along. Occasionally, we've had to retcon the next session due to after-game discussion.

But most of us, being seasoned RPG players, accept at-table GM rulings & move on. Sometimes the GM will take quick player-input & make a ruling.

But we have one rules-lawyer.... and what's funny is that she pulls shenanigans as a player she won't allow as a GM, to the point that how she'll argue to interpret a rule as a player is NOT how she interprets it as a GM Several of my group won't be players under her cuz of that. If you're gonna rule-law with the same group of people, be consistent on BOTH sides of the screen.

[Myrrhibis]

I also don't mind GMs that make things up on the fly, whether to "make more sense" or to have a "realistic" feel to the action/consequences - but they've gotta be consistent. What applies to the players should also apply to NPCs & vice versa.
Even better when there's multiple GMs/campaigns with mostly the same players, and those "rule calls" cross campaigns. It may be a house rule - but it's a basic rule.

[Killer Cyborg]

Remember the GOLDEN RULEs of rpgs

1) If you Don't Like something, change it.
2) HAVE FUN

Those were the Golden Rules of RPgs.
But I didn't like them, so I changed them.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

This is the palladium forums where everybody is a "rules lawyer".

[jaymz]

I been playing with a group for a little over a year now and have one person who is making our games the worst games I have ever played. He wants to be the most powerful character in all the campaigns so he can get the most experience points per game. He is a rule lawyer as long as it goes the way he wants to go.

Because of his mouth and the way he interprets the rules, our games have come close to big fights and many arguments. Most of the time, people have had to go outside or walk around to cool down instead of beating the rule lawyer up.

Everybody in our party creates our characters from the books information or things we find elsewhere. The rule lawyer would use npcs from the books to create his characters. He used one of the gods from pantheons books to create his first character that he won't let die even if the character is beaten to under 100 hit points.

Rule lawyers are only good if they use the rules for the benefit of the game and the benefit of all who are playing the game and not causing arguments, fights, and making the other players want to quit playing Rifts. If the game is to be fun for all, the rules lawyers need to be quite and think of other peoples gaming enjoyment, and to never try to run a game while there is already a GM running a campaign!

[Profanity is not allowed. Mack]

[Chronicle]

I find myself guilty of the Crime from time to time and forget often that story trumps rules at times.......Rules can be bent or even changed

Usually in the games i play GM's tend to state house rules before starting.

[Nightmask]

The player in the group I been rifting with told me last game that I have to show him every character I create and get his approval to play. The words I used to tell him off are not approved for all audience members. The GM finally stood his ground and kicked the guy out of the game, but for only one game so far. The others in our group enjoys most of my characters, since I bring them something new and make the campaign fun.

The way this rule lawyer does his messing up is that he does not have any of the books and had to photocopy sections that were important to him. He has never read through any of the books or even seen how to create characters that he would truly enjoy using.

That's a special kind of arrogant to actually tell you to hand over your character to him for approval when he's just another player. I'm not sure what language I'd use in response to that kind of demand, probably try polite and get more blunt if he persisted.

[jaymz]

The player in the group I been rifting with told me last game that I have to show him every character I create and get his approval to play. The words I used to tell him off are not approved for all audience members. The GM finally stood his ground and kicked the guy out of the game, but for only one game so far. The others in our group enjoys most of my characters, since I bring them something new and make the campaign fun.

The way this rule lawyer does his messing up is that he does not have any of the books and had to photocopy sections that were important to him. He has never read through any of the books or even seen how to create characters that he would truly enjoy using.

That's a special kind of arrogant to actually tell you to hand over your character to him for approval when he's just another player. I'm not sure what language I'd use in response to that kind of demand, probably try polite and get more blunt if he persisted.

The words I would use would be.......well....let us just say I COULD type them here in such a way that they'd appear but I won't.

[flatline]

We were highly discouraged by the GM from looking at other character's sheets.

Using information about another character that you wouldn't have an in-game way of knowing was the worst form of using out of character knowledge.

Heck, we were even careful about talking to the GM about our character if others were listening. We passed lots of notes...

--flatline

[Nightmask]

We were highly discouraged by the GM from looking at other character's sheets.

Using information about another character that you wouldn't have an in-game way of knowing was the worst form of using out of character knowledge.

Heck, we were even careful about talking to the GM about our character if others were listening. We passed lots of notes...

--flatline

That's one of those things that GM tend to be all over the map about, some don't mind it at all particularly if a group has already been together or the characters are the sorts to freely share information about themselves (say to have an idea how much they can depend on another PC in certain situations or when they need to cover an ally with say a Martian Manhunter weakness). Others want everything learned in game.

[flatline]

We were highly discouraged by the GM from looking at other character's sheets.

Using information about another character that you wouldn't have an in-game way of knowing was the worst form of using out of character knowledge.

Heck, we were even careful about talking to the GM about our character if others were listening. We passed lots of notes...

--flatline

That's one of those things that GM tend to be all over the map about, some don't mind it at all particularly if a group has already been together or the characters are the sorts to freely share information about themselves (say to have an idea how much they can depend on another PC in certain situations or when they need to cover an ally with say a Martian Manhunter weakness). Others want everything learned in game.

We always allowed a fair amount of intra-party conflict, so knowing the strengths and weaknesses of another character was a big deal if you ended up fighting them later. We often went to great pains to make it appear out characters were something that they weren't not just to throw off NPCs, but also the other players...you know, just in case.

I even remember someone creating a "decoy" character sheet that made it look like a relatively weak character was pretending to be something far more powerful. Another player saw that decoy sheet and then later decided to call the first player's "bluff" only to get his butt handed to him when the first character turned out to be exactly what it looked like.

Good times

--flatline

[Nightmask]

We were highly discouraged by the GM from looking at other character's sheets.

Using information about another character that you wouldn't have an in-game way of knowing was the worst form of using out of character knowledge.

Heck, we were even careful about talking to the GM about our character if others were listening. We passed lots of notes...

--flatline

That's one of those things that GM tend to be all over the map about, some don't mind it at all particularly if a group has already been together or the characters are the sorts to freely share information about themselves (say to have an idea how much they can depend on another PC in certain situations or when they need to cover an ally with say a Martian Manhunter weakness). Others want everything learned in game.

We always allowed a fair amount of intra-party conflict, so knowing the strengths and weaknesses of another character was a big deal if you ended up fighting them later. We often went to great pains to make it appear out characters were something that they weren't not just to throw off NPCs, but also the other players...you know, just in case.

I even remember someone creating a "decoy" character sheet that made it look like a relatively weak character was pretending to be something far more powerful. Another player saw that decoy sheet and then later decided to call the first player's "bluff" only to get his butt handed to him when the first character turned out to be exactly what it looked like.

Good times

--flatline

Now see that's something I've never understood, everyone spending as much time plotting to eliminate other PC as they do the NPC problems that are around. I've never played a game thinking about how I'd go about taking out other PC, I just couldn't enjoy a game where there was such a fundamental lack of trust going around. Deal with too much of that iRL so would rather not have to deal with that in a game.

[flatline]

We were highly discouraged by the GM from looking at other character's sheets.

Using information about another character that you wouldn't have an in-game way of knowing was the worst form of using out of character knowledge.

Heck, we were even careful about talking to the GM about our character if others were listening. We passed lots of notes...

--flatline

That's one of those things that GM tend to be all over the map about, some don't mind it at all particularly if a group has already been together or the characters are the sorts to freely share information about themselves (say to have an idea how much they can depend on another PC in certain situations or when they need to cover an ally with say a Martian Manhunter weakness). Others want everything learned in game.

We always allowed a fair amount of intra-party conflict, so knowing the strengths and weaknesses of another character was a big deal if you ended up fighting them later. We often went to great pains to make it appear out characters were something that they weren't not just to throw off NPCs, but also the other players...you know, just in case.

I even remember someone creating a "decoy" character sheet that made it look like a relatively weak character was pretending to be something far more powerful. Another player saw that decoy sheet and then later decided to call the first player's "bluff" only to get his butt handed to him when the first character turned out to be exactly what it looked like.

Good times

--flatline

Now see that's something I've never understood, everyone spending as much time plotting to eliminate other PC as they do the NPC problems that are around. I've never played a game thinking about how I'd go about taking out other PC, I just couldn't enjoy a game where there was such a fundamental lack of trust going around. Deal with too much of that iRL so would rather not have to deal with that in a game.

I played in a couple different groups. One group was all about competing against each other. One group was all about the campaign. And one group that a mix of the two, but more importantly, any retired character became an NPC that the GM could use however they wanted which meant they might not be an ally the next time you ran into them.

Secrecy was most important to the 3rd GM. Even if it was your old character he was using, you were expected not to use that knowledge when playing your current character unless your current character had some way of knowing it.

--flatline

[drewkitty ~..~]

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?

It is because they do not know when to stop being rules lawyers.
Here in the boards being canonly correct is what is needed for answering questions.
But in a game it is the time to let the GM gm.

[jaymz]

Here in the boards being canonly correct is what is needed for answering questions.
But in a game it is the time to let the GM gm.

This should be the mantra of every player in any campaign anywhere.

[Mack]

I agree with what Rappanui and Drewkitty said, but some players think that since they been playing for a few years that they know everything about the game compared to people who played Rifts for more then 10 years. Most of what I learned from Roleplaying games is from watching others, reading the books, and asking multiple questions.

I would not ask a person who only started playing Rifts in the last four years about anything to do with the game, but I would rather ask a person who played Rifts a lot longer for advice and hints.

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player thinks. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

[jaymz]

I agree with what Rappanui and Drewkitty said, but some players think that since they been playing for a few years that they know everything about the game compared to people who played Rifts for more then 10 years. Most of what I learned from Roleplaying games is from watching others, reading the books, and asking multiple questions.

I would not ask a person who only started playing Rifts in the last four years about anything to do with the game, but I would rather ask a person who played Rifts a lot longer for advice and hints.

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player thinks. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

I cannot agree with this more. Perfect example is veteran players who, while they have RUE, don't realize there were some significant rule changes compared to the RMB and assume there wasn't.

[flatline]

I agree with what Rappanui and Drewkitty said, but some players think that since they been playing for a few years that they know everything about the game compared to people who played Rifts for more then 10 years. Most of what I learned from Roleplaying games is from watching others, reading the books, and asking multiple questions.

I would not ask a person who only started playing Rifts in the last four years about anything to do with the game, but I would rather ask a person who played Rifts a lot longer for advice and hints.

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player [i]thinks[i]. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

Or even worse, veterans might live in a world where rules are fluid and are constantly amended (or disregarded and replaced) at the whim of the GM to the point where the players don't even bother to read the rules anymore beyond character creation.

I'm probably one of the worst examples of this "the book rules are just suggestions" attitude here on the forums, but I promise that I'll never knowingly attempt to pass off house rules as canon.

--flatline

[cornholioprime]

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.

Heh.

Our old, old, old D&D Group was broken up entirely by one such fellow.....he almost got himself a two-way ass-whuppin' from both the GM and the dude that we'd all thought was by far the meekest, most harmless guy of us all (but who had actually been simmering inside all that time, the Rules Lawyer always stretched out the games so long with never-ending arguments with the DM that we seldom managed to get things done....).

Thanks for giving me the mental flashback of the wimpiest guy in group (and we were all wimpy social outcast nerds to start with) launching himself across the Gaming Table as if he were an Action Movie Star....

[cornholioprime]

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?

It is because they do not know when to stop being rules lawyers.
Here in the boards being canonly correct is what is needed for answering questions.
But in a game it is the time to let the GM gm.

You should sig that.

[Colt47]

I don't hate rules lawyers! I cuddle them, nourish them, and unleash them on my most hated of enemies.

[drewkitty ~..~]

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?

It is because they do not know when to stop being rules lawyers.
Here in the boards being canonly correct is what is needed for answering questions.
But in a game it is the time to let the GM gm.

You should sig that.

The other side of the coin to the above is that GM's need to tell their players what their house rules are.

[jaymz]

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?

It is because they do not know when to stop being rules lawyers.
Here in the boards being canonly correct is what is needed for answering questions.
But in a game it is the time to let the GM gm.

You should sig that.

The other side of the coin to the above is that GM's need to tell their players what their house rules are.

[Vrykolas2k]

I agree with what Rappanui and Drewkitty said, but some players think that since they been playing for a few years that they know everything about the game compared to people who played Rifts for more then 10 years. Most of what I learned from Roleplaying games is from watching others, reading the books, and asking multiple questions.

I would not ask a person who only started playing Rifts in the last four years about anything to do with the game, but I would rather ask a person who played Rifts a lot longer for advice and hints.

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player thinks. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

I cannot agree with this more. Perfect example is veteran players who, while they have RUE, don't realize there were some significant rule changes compared to the RMB and assume there wasn't.

Or don't care. I don't use some of the newer rules, but I at least let my players know which I don't use (such as the so-called GI Joe rule), which I do, and which conflicting rules I use out of whatever books.
I avoid much woe thusly.

[DhAkael]

Not carring. YOUR game, your rules as GM.
Period.
Rules lawyers of all stripe can go take a flying wet one.
~End of line.

[jaymz]

I agree with what Rappanui and Drewkitty said, but some players think that since they been playing for a few years that they know everything about the game compared to people who played Rifts for more then 10 years. Most of what I learned from Roleplaying games is from watching others, reading the books, and asking multiple questions.

I would not ask a person who only started playing Rifts in the last four years about anything to do with the game, but I would rather ask a person who played Rifts a lot longer for advice and hints.

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player thinks. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

I cannot agree with this more. Perfect example is veteran players who, while they have RUE, don't realize there were some significant rule changes compared to the RMB and assume there wasn't.

Or don't care. I don't use some of the newer rules, but I at least let my players know which I don't use (such as the so-called GI Joe rule), which I do, and which conflicting rules I use out of whatever books.
I avoid much woe thusly.

Ah but see there is the difference. You KNOW of the differences and choose to not use certain parts. I have no problem with that.

What I was talking about are players who swear "THIS IS HOW IT IS!!!" to someone who has never owned a copy of RMB and only has RUE yet the player swearing "THIS IS HOW IT IS!!!", while they HAVE RUE, has no clue that the rule got changed and that "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!!" is actually incorrect according to the newest set of rules.

[jaymz]

I would also caution folks not to blindly accept what a veteran player thinks. Veterans can fall victim to the "we've always done it that way" approach instead of checking the book, or not realizing that a rule was revised.

I cannot agree with this more. Perfect example is veteran players who, while they have RUE, don't realize there were some significant rule changes compared to the RMB and assume there wasn't.

Or don't care. I don't use some of the newer rules, but I at least let my players know which I don't use (such as the so-called GI Joe rule), which I do, and which conflicting rules I use out of whatever books.
I avoid much woe thusly.

Ah but see there is the difference. You KNOW of the differences and choose to not use certain parts. I have no problem with that.

What I was talking about are players who swear "THIS IS HOW IT IS!!!" to someone who has never owned a copy of RMB and only has RUE yet the player swearing "THIS IS HOW IT IS!!!", while they HAVE RUE, has no clue that the rule got changed and that "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!!" is actually incorrect according to the newest set of rules.

Lost me Jaymz are you saying RMB rules are voided by R;UE and that someone waving RMB claiming it's rules are wrong or the other way around?

I am saying that primarily RUE rules supercede RMB rules as they are the newest "edition/set" of rules published.

For example:

Veteran Player has RMB and RUE claims to know the game inside and out. New Player only has RUE and says they know the game but are relatively new.

Veteran Player swears Modern WP's work like this: Aimed +3 (+4 for revolvers), Burst +1, Wild +0, +1 to strike every 3 levels after level 1. Which is true according to RMB (but not RUE)

New Player says that is not how it is.

Veteran Player argues that New Player doesn't know what they are talking about and that Veteran Player has been playing since RMB came out over 20 years ago.

New Player cites the pages in RUE where modern combat and WP's are covered that shows that RUE in fact DID change how the Modern WP's work and how the ranged combat bonuses etc are changed.

Veteran Player is shocked to find out RUE, which they own, has significantly changed who the Modern WP's receive bonuses and how Modern Combat bonuses were also changed quite a bit.

THAT is what I am talking about and I have seen it happen more than once on these very forums. The above argument then devolves into a RMB vs RUE war usually.

[jaymz]

Thank you for clearing that up.

No problem

[Noon]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

[jaymz]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

I have a printout of all my rules that I will give players before I run a game. The first session, aside from making characters will be to go over these rules so that if they have questions I can answer them and explain why my rules are what they are. That usually cut's down on the 'I won;t play with your rules" crowd.

[Nightmask]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

I have a printout of all my rules that I will give players before I run a game. The first session, aside from making characters will be to go over these rules so that if they have questions I can answer them and explain why my rules are what they are. That usually cut's down on the 'I won;t play with your rules" crowd.

If only all GM were like that, letting you know up front what rules they have that differ from what you expect so you can decide before even going into the game if you want to play under them or not.

[jaymz]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

I have a printout of all my rules that I will give players before I run a game. The first session, aside from making characters will be to go over these rules so that if they have questions I can answer them and explain why my rules are what they are. That usually cut's down on the 'I won;t play with your rules" crowd.

If only all GM were like that, letting you know up front what rules they have that differ from what you expect so you can decide before even going into the game if you want to play under them or not.

Well I cannot expect you to read my mind so SOMEONE has to tell you my rules don't they? Might as well be me who does it.

[Nightmask]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

I have a printout of all my rules that I will give players before I run a game. The first session, aside from making characters will be to go over these rules so that if they have questions I can answer them and explain why my rules are what they are. That usually cut's down on the 'I won;t play with your rules" crowd.

If only all GM were like that, letting you know up front what rules they have that differ from what you expect so you can decide before even going into the game if you want to play under them or not.

Well I cannot expect you to read my mind so SOMEONE has to tell you my rules don't they? Might as well be me who does it.

You'd be surprised how many people expect you to read their minds and just know things.

[jaymz]

I don't buy the 'your game, your rules' line. Mostly because I don't think people who say it actually mean it - the game is aweful enough, you'll walk. How is that 'your game, your rules' when you refuse that game and those rules?

Frankly I just think there's basically a slider, with how much the GM just does what he wants to, Vs how much he's supposed to cater to players fun. 100% the former and unless your lucky, it's usually so idiosyncratic it's unplayable, 100% the other way and the GM plays yes men to the players, for fear they might have slightly less fun for five minutes. I think you pitch the slider somewhere in between, kinda working it out with your group, like 70% the former and 30% the latter. Or whatever percentage - though as said, I think the extreme ends are both bogus.

I have a printout of all my rules that I will give players before I run a game. The first session, aside from making characters will be to go over these rules so that if they have questions I can answer them and explain why my rules are what they are. That usually cut's down on the 'I won;t play with your rules" crowd.

If only all GM were like that, letting you know up front what rules they have that differ from what you expect so you can decide before even going into the game if you want to play under them or not.

Well I cannot expect you to read my mind so SOMEONE has to tell you my rules don't they? Might as well be me who does it.

You'd be surprised how many people expect you to read their minds and just know things.

Well the human race as a whole are stupid idiotic people so no I am not surprised.

[Armorlord]

There are times where I am concerned that I am a bit of a rules lawyer. Probably comes from being the primary GM for so long, I have trouble not correcting things. Though since I tend to work against myself with that as well, it tends to balance out, like reminding the GM that I need to do something or about some negative effect my character should be suffering. Occasionally, there has been a full-on heel-digging, though the most recent incident I can think of involved the GM apologizing afterward because it had resulted from him mistaking something (he keeps thinking of Banestorm halflings as about a quarter the size that they are, so the at the time opponent couldn't actually lift one one-handed, let alone spin overhead and smash them headfirst with one hand.)
Though I have found myself a lot more easygoing about Megaversal games, probably because I know there can be a few ways of interpreting things.

[Cyrano de Maniac]

The best gaming group I ever played with (who except for me were all friends from childhood), had a great method of heading off rules conflicts.

In their situation they would take turns GMing adventures, an adventure usually lasting somewhere around 10-20 sessions. If they ran up against an ambiguous rule, or suddenly found themselves needing a new rule to cover a situation, that session's GM's interpretation or impromptu rule would be the law of the land for the remainder of the session. Before the next session (usually the next week) that GM would type up the new rule/interpretation, and at the start of the next session all the GMs would vote on whether to adopt it as a house rule. If it was adopted, the rule was entered into a binder holding the entire set of house rules, and everyone played by those rules.

House or system rules were also modified or removed by the same mechanism, but unless there was an unanticipated need to do so mid-session, those rules would stand as-is until they were voted on at the beginning of the next session. If it was important enough to take care of the unanticipated need right there, the GMs would collectively propose and vote a change up or down on the spot.

This headed off all rules lawyering problems, and encouraged people who weren't GMs to take a shot at it so they could earn their GM stripes and have a say in house rules.

Brent

[Nightmask]

I had a sudden flash to an issue of Knights Of The Dinner Table when the group's resident Rules Lawyer started bringing in tons of material from online claiming it was official material from someone associated with the game and was using it to wreck things, only for the GM to go online and look and see that not surprisingly the Rules Lawyer had left out all the detrimental tables and only was handing over the stuff beneficial to him and the group. Naturally next game session everyone had quite the rude shock once the GM started using all those OTHER tables.

[Ravenwing]

I gave my GM a copy of every RCC, OCC, weapon, and anything else I found online. The rules lawyer will always say that it is not allowed since it is not in the books, he will use the things he finds online for himself until one of our acting GMs (normal GM was tired and wanted a break) told him that he could not since he said nobody was allowed before hand.

I ran one game with my group and had to stop to tell the rules lawyer to stop his butting in on something that did not involve his character or him. He wanted to try and say that I was running the game wrong, only he did not know I discussed the campaign with the normal GM before hand. He helped me to set the campaign in order and helped me to create all the npcs and enemy forces.

That is one way to keep rules lawyers from messing up any game. Get the normal GM to help with the rules, campaign, and all useful information.

Actually the best way to deal with a Rules lawyer is to tell them to walk. The first rule I explain to everyone I GM for. Arguments at the table during game will not be tolerated. If I make a call you don't like, or understand, make a note of it, and ask me after the game. I'll explain the 'who, what, where, when or why' of it then happily. But don't derail the game just because I called something that didn't mesh with the book.
The Story is the most important part of the Game, and if a rule gets in the way of the story, it's bye bye rule. And no this doesn't just apply to NPC's. I've allowed more then a few PC's do things that simply weren't allowed by the rules. As long as the Player could explain how they wanted/thought it would work, I let it fly and ran with it. Even if it was just down right stupid. So long as the other players didn't object(And I've often found that the most stupid ideas often get the whole group into things.).

If a player dislikes a call I make, I encourage them to talk to me about it, AFTER the game. I'll do my best to explain my thinking or reason. And I'll do my best to remain open-minded about their opinions, thoughts and feelings on it. An RPG is an interactive thing, the GM and players are telling a story. That means communication is vital. But to bog down a game because you can't think outside the rulebook and want to beat everyone else at the table over the head with it is just plain annoying, rude, and inbred thinking. I've seen to many games ruined because one person insisted that 'That can't happen, according to Page XX Paragraph XX Sub-paragraph XX, Lines XX-XX it says!" I had one player during a game that was so bad that it drove me to literally bane any books at the table!
Now I explain to any player running in my game, " I reserve the right to ignore, alter, change, laugh at, and run completely roughshod over the rules in the book. I encourage my players to do the same and think outside the box." If a player can't handle that, then they don't need to run under me, it's pretty much that simple.

[DhAkael]

I gave my GM a copy of every RCC, OCC, weapon, and anything else I found online. The rules lawyer will always say that it is not allowed since it is not in the books, he will use the things he finds online for himself until one of our acting GMs (normal GM was tired and wanted a break) told him that he could not since he said nobody was allowed before hand.

I ran one game with my group and had to stop to tell the rules lawyer to stop his butting in on something that did not involve his character or him. He wanted to try and say that I was running the game wrong, only he did not know I discussed the campaign with the normal GM before hand. He helped me to set the campaign in order and helped me to create all the npcs and enemy forces.

That is one way to keep rules lawyers from messing up any game. Get the normal GM to help with the rules, campaign, and all useful information.

Actually the best way to deal with a Rules lawyer is to tell them to walk. The first rule I explain to everyone I GM for. Arguments at the table during game will not be tolerated. If I make a call you don't like, or understand, make a note of it, and ask me after the game. I'll explain the 'who, what, where, when or why' of it then happily. But don't derail the game just because I called something that didn't mesh with the book.
The Story is the most important part of the Game, and if a rule gets in the way of the story, it's bye bye rule. And no this doesn't just apply to NPC's. I've allowed more then a few PC's do things that simply weren't allowed by the rules. As long as the Player could explain how they wanted/thought it would work, I let it fly and ran with it. Even if it was just down right stupid. So long as the other players didn't object(And I've often found that the most stupid ideas often get the whole group into things.).

If a player dislikes a call I make, I encourage them to talk to me about it, AFTER the game. I'll do my best to explain my thinking or reason. And I'll do my best to remain open-minded about their opinions, thoughts and feelings on it. An RPG is an interactive thing, the GM and players are telling a story. That means communication is vital. But to bog down a game because you can't think outside the rulebook and want to beat everyone else at the table over the head with it is just plain annoying, rude, and inbred thinking. I've seen to many games ruined because one person insisted that 'That can't happen, according to Page XX Paragraph XX Sub-paragraph XX, Lines XX-XX it says!" I had one player during a game that was so bad that it drove me to literally bane any books at the table!
Now I explain to any player running in my game, " I reserve the right to ignore, alter, change, laugh at, and run completely roughshod over the rules in the book. I encourage my players to do the same and think outside the box." If a player can't handle that, then they don't need to run under me, it's pretty much that simple.

This equals TRUTH!
Thank you sir

[Vrykolas2k]

I gave my GM a copy of every RCC, OCC, weapon, and anything else I found online. The rules lawyer will always say that it is not allowed since it is not in the books, he will use the things he finds online for himself until one of our acting GMs (normal GM was tired and wanted a break) told him that he could not since he said nobody was allowed before hand.

I ran one game with my group and had to stop to tell the rules lawyer to stop his butting in on something that did not involve his character or him. He wanted to try and say that I was running the game wrong, only he did not know I discussed the campaign with the normal GM before hand. He helped me to set the campaign in order and helped me to create all the npcs and enemy forces.

That is one way to keep rules lawyers from messing up any game. Get the normal GM to help with the rules, campaign, and all useful information.

Actually the best way to deal with a Rules lawyer is to tell them to walk. The first rule I explain to everyone I GM for. Arguments at the table during game will not be tolerated. If I make a call you don't like, or understand, make a note of it, and ask me after the game. I'll explain the 'who, what, where, when or why' of it then happily. But don't derail the game just because I called something that didn't mesh with the book.
The Story is the most important part of the Game, and if a rule gets in the way of the story, it's bye bye rule. And no this doesn't just apply to NPC's. I've allowed more then a few PC's do things that simply weren't allowed by the rules. As long as the Player could explain how they wanted/thought it would work, I let it fly and ran with it. Even if it was just down right stupid. So long as the other players didn't object(And I've often found that the most stupid ideas often get the whole group into things.).

If a player dislikes a call I make, I encourage them to talk to me about it, AFTER the game. I'll do my best to explain my thinking or reason. And I'll do my best to remain open-minded about their opinions, thoughts and feelings on it. An RPG is an interactive thing, the GM and players are telling a story. That means communication is vital. But to bog down a game because you can't think outside the rulebook and want to beat everyone else at the table over the head with it is just plain annoying, rude, and inbred thinking. I've seen to many games ruined because one person insisted that 'That can't happen, according to Page XX Paragraph XX Sub-paragraph XX, Lines XX-XX it says!" I had one player during a game that was so bad that it drove me to literally bane any books at the table!
Now I explain to any player running in my game, " I reserve the right to ignore, alter, change, laugh at, and run completely roughshod over the rules in the book. I encourage my players to do the same and think outside the box." If a player can't handle that, then they don't need to run under me, it's pretty much that simple.

Rules lawyers are often created by bad GMs.
A fact many of you seem to be ignoring.

[DhAkael]

Rules lawyers are often created by bad GMs.
A fact many of you seem to be ignoring.

Not at all...

Rule # 1; the GM is ALWAYS correct.
Always.
However they may not be correct in the way the rest of the payer group wishes; in which case the player group should then find a GM who is correct in a way they feel serves them best.
A fact many seem to be ignoring.

Rules lawyers are a blight and a pox upon gaming in ANY game system. Kill-joys the whole lot.
As RW stated; wait until AFTER the game session is run to voice an OPINION / greivence; do NOT disrupt the rest of the crew's enjoyment. Unless the entire group is unhappy. Then please reffer to the above.

[jaymz]

I gave my GM a copy of every RCC, OCC, weapon, and anything else I found online. The rules lawyer will always say that it is not allowed since it is not in the books, he will use the things he finds online for himself until one of our acting GMs (normal GM was tired and wanted a break) told him that he could not since he said nobody was allowed before hand.

I ran one game with my group and had to stop to tell the rules lawyer to stop his butting in on something that did not involve his character or him. He wanted to try and say that I was running the game wrong, only he did not know I discussed the campaign with the normal GM before hand. He helped me to set the campaign in order and helped me to create all the npcs and enemy forces.

That is one way to keep rules lawyers from messing up any game. Get the normal GM to help with the rules, campaign, and all useful information.

Actually the best way to deal with a Rules lawyer is to tell them to walk. The first rule I explain to everyone I GM for. Arguments at the table during game will not be tolerated. If I make a call you don't like, or understand, make a note of it, and ask me after the game. I'll explain the 'who, what, where, when or why' of it then happily. But don't derail the game just because I called something that didn't mesh with the book.
The Story is the most important part of the Game, and if a rule gets in the way of the story, it's bye bye rule. And no this doesn't just apply to NPC's. I've allowed more then a few PC's do things that simply weren't allowed by the rules. As long as the Player could explain how they wanted/thought it would work, I let it fly and ran with it. Even if it was just down right stupid. So long as the other players didn't object(And I've often found that the most stupid ideas often get the whole group into things.).

If a player dislikes a call I make, I encourage them to talk to me about it, AFTER the game. I'll do my best to explain my thinking or reason. And I'll do my best to remain open-minded about their opinions, thoughts and feelings on it. An RPG is an interactive thing, the GM and players are telling a story. That means communication is vital. But to bog down a game because you can't think outside the rulebook and want to beat everyone else at the table over the head with it is just plain annoying, rude, and inbred thinking. I've seen to many games ruined because one person insisted that 'That can't happen, according to Page XX Paragraph XX Sub-paragraph XX, Lines XX-XX it says!" I had one player during a game that was so bad that it drove me to literally bane any books at the table!
Now I explain to any player running in my game, " I reserve the right to ignore, alter, change, laugh at, and run completely roughshod over the rules in the book. I encourage my players to do the same and think outside the box." If a player can't handle that, then they don't need to run under me, it's pretty much that simple.

Rules lawyers are often created by bad GMs.
A fact many of you seem to be ignoring.

Regardless of how bad a GM is, things like most rules lawyers do at the table should be left for after the session not during. It is during the game that rules lawyer antics get on most peoples nerves.

[Nightmask]

I gave my GM a copy of every RCC, OCC, weapon, and anything else I found online. The rules lawyer will always say that it is not allowed since it is not in the books, he will use the things he finds online for himself until one of our acting GMs (normal GM was tired and wanted a break) told him that he could not since he said nobody was allowed before hand.

I ran one game with my group and had to stop to tell the rules lawyer to stop his butting in on something that did not involve his character or him. He wanted to try and say that I was running the game wrong, only he did not know I discussed the campaign with the normal GM before hand. He helped me to set the campaign in order and helped me to create all the npcs and enemy forces.

That is one way to keep rules lawyers from messing up any game. Get the normal GM to help with the rules, campaign, and all useful information.

Actually the best way to deal with a Rules lawyer is to tell them to walk. The first rule I explain to everyone I GM for. Arguments at the table during game will not be tolerated. If I make a call you don't like, or understand, make a note of it, and ask me after the game. I'll explain the 'who, what, where, when or why' of it then happily. But don't derail the game just because I called something that didn't mesh with the book.
The Story is the most important part of the Game, and if a rule gets in the way of the story, it's bye bye rule. And no this doesn't just apply to NPC's. I've allowed more then a few PC's do things that simply weren't allowed by the rules. As long as the Player could explain how they wanted/thought it would work, I let it fly and ran with it. Even if it was just down right stupid. So long as the other players didn't object(And I've often found that the most stupid ideas often get the whole group into things.).

If a player dislikes a call I make, I encourage them to talk to me about it, AFTER the game. I'll do my best to explain my thinking or reason. And I'll do my best to remain open-minded about their opinions, thoughts and feelings on it. An RPG is an interactive thing, the GM and players are telling a story. That means communication is vital. But to bog down a game because you can't think outside the rulebook and want to beat everyone else at the table over the head with it is just plain annoying, rude, and inbred thinking. I've seen to many games ruined because one person insisted that 'That can't happen, according to Page XX Paragraph XX Sub-paragraph XX, Lines XX-XX it says!" I had one player during a game that was so bad that it drove me to literally bane any books at the table!
Now I explain to any player running in my game, " I reserve the right to ignore, alter, change, laugh at, and run completely roughshod over the rules in the book. I encourage my players to do the same and think outside the box." If a player can't handle that, then they don't need to run under me, it's pretty much that simple.

Rules lawyers are often created by bad GMs.
A fact many of you seem to be ignoring.

I don't think I'd be blaming a GM for that, unless it's an ex-GM who can't adjust to being on the other side of the table. Rules Lawyering is a reflection of various personality traits, some good and some bad, and not easy to say where it starts.

[Nightmask]

Rules lawyers are often created by bad GMs.
A fact many of you seem to be ignoring.

Regardless of how bad a GM is, things like most rules lawyers do at the table should be left for after the session not during. It is during the game that rules lawyer antics get on most peoples nerves.

Well at least some of the stuff the Rules Lawyer is going after (and any player in general) is stuff that affects how the game plays out. Their PC would make a different choice if rule A is in effect rather than Rule A-2, which would result in other changes down the line. They're looking to clarify things.

Finding out as the game's going on that 'what do you mean I can't teleport?' when you went into a situation where you sure you could because of the rules is definitely going to generate an argument especially if it's an otherwise fatal situation you'd have never gotten involved in doing knowing that ahead of time.