Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[jaymz]

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.

Then that is an obligation of the GM AND players to get all that kind of stuff sorted out ahead of time isn't it? In most cases, at least I know for me anyway, if I do something and find out that no you can;t do that I don't run that rule that way, I'll just say Oh okay then I'd like to rethink my actions rather than getting into an argument about the rules. If the GM at that point won;t allow you to rethink your actions then that's being a jerkwad GM and has nothing to do with rules lawyering or anything else.

[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.

Then that is an obligation of the GM AND players to get all that kind of stuff sorted out ahead of time isn't it? In most cases, at least I know for me anyway, if I do something and find out that no you can;t do that I don't run that rule that way, I'll just say Oh okay then I'd like to rethink my actions rather than getting into an argument about the rules. If the GM at that point won;t allow you to rethink your actions then that's being a jerkwad GM and has nothing to do with rules lawyering or anything else.

Unfortunately it seems like many GM never think to mention their house rules until you're into the game and getting an unpleasant shock hearing 'sorry you can't do that'. One had a house rule that if your opponent was a better fighter by a certain margin you couldn't dodge or parry attacks, period. You just had to take it. I'd have never gone into his game knowing that ahead of time.

[flatline]

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.

Then that is an obligation of the GM AND players to get all that kind of stuff sorted out ahead of time isn't it? In most cases, at least I know for me anyway, if I do something and find out that no you can;t do that I don't run that rule that way, I'll just say Oh okay then I'd like to rethink my actions rather than getting into an argument about the rules. If the GM at that point won;t allow you to rethink your actions then that's being a jerkwad GM and has nothing to do with rules lawyering or anything else.

Unfortunately it seems like many GM never think to mention their house rules until you're into the game and getting an unpleasant shock hearing 'sorry you can't do that'. One had a house rule that if your opponent was a better fighter by a certain margin you couldn't dodge or parry attacks, period. You just had to take it. I'd have never gone into his game knowing that ahead of time.

That could still be a fun game as long as he didn't constantly railroad you into combat...

"What do you mean you're giving up adventuring to open a restaurant?"

--flatline

[Nightmask]

That could still be a fun game as long as he didn't constantly railroad you into combat...

"What do you mean you're giving up adventuring to open a restaurant?"

--flatline

Well the game didn't last long, and it was definitely going to be a combat-heavy game (it STARTED with the Celestials battling some cosmic threat around Mars), finding out you had to just suck up any attacks since my character was not a fighter-sort would have killed my interest even faster.

[Ravenwing]

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.

Then that is an obligation of the GM AND players to get all that kind of stuff sorted out ahead of time isn't it? In most cases, at least I know for me anyway, if I do something and find out that no you can;t do that I don't run that rule that way, I'll just say Oh okay then I'd like to rethink my actions rather than getting into an argument about the rules. If the GM at that point won;t allow you to rethink your actions then that's being a jerkwad GM and has nothing to do with rules lawyering or anything else.

I agree with this.

If I'm in a game, and I'm told that my characters actions aren't allowed under the houserules, I say Okay, in that case I want to hold my actions and rethink them.

I've never been under a GM that wouldn't be like 'Cool'.

But I don't argue about the rule changes, I just nod, file that information a way and switch up my game. Adapt or Die. 'Nuff Said.

[Colt47]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

[Ravenwing]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

[DhAkael]

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

TRUTH!

[Nightmask]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Don't be blaming the bad GM's bad behavior on the players, they can be just as defective as a defective player because they're all people and GM are just as prone to problem behavior as the players are. People just don't put as much effort into setting up a range of bad GM behavior labels as they do for players and just lump them under 'bad GM' instead of 'twink/troll/powergamer/munchkin/etc'.

[Colt47]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Don't be blaming the bad GM's bad behavior on the players, they can be just as defective as a defective player because they're all people and GM are just as prone to problem behavior as the players are. People just don't put as much effort into setting up a range of bad GM behavior labels as they do for players and just lump them under 'bad GM' instead of 'twink/troll/powergamer/munchkin/etc'.

It's called the 7 deadly GM sins. In fact you can find them in the Rifts GM guide and mentions of them in old D&D DM guides, My 3rd edition DM's guide hints at the cardinal problems with GM power trips.

The best way to avoid getting into power trips and doing things that annoy players is to make sure that the adventure is planned out well, with some leeway in how the adventure can come to an end. This is how I used to run my old 3rd edition games, and it has done wonders for both the players and myself. As far as being a good player, it usually helps to focus more on the characters story and what makes them who they are than focusing on powers and abilities (Unless dealing with a character who's powers are based on who they are, such as Nightbane and some super heroes). Everything from what they wear casually to their mannerisms is just as important, if not more so, than what weapon they are brandishing and how good the armor is. This is also why I get into a tantrum when GM's take something like casual wear and nick knacks: they help others visualize what your character looks like, so stripping them of that aspect is especially problematic.

Actually, now that I think about it, this very situation happened just this weekend in the game I'm currently playing on the message boards.

[Vrykolas2k]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

[jaymz]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

So for example, if you were to play in my game, which I am always sure to make new players understand my house rules beforehand, you'd feel less desire to be a rules lawyer and talk to me after a session?

[Colt47]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

So for example, if you were to play in my game, which I am always sure to make new players understand my house rules beforehand, you'd feel less desire to be a rules lawyer and talk to me after a session?

Well, I for one would be less likely to complain about a particular house rule if I heard about it beforehand. Likewise, I'd also explain my style of play and pet peeves so as to better avoid any problems that might occur.

[jaymz]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

So for example, if you were to play in my game, which I am always sure to make new players understand my house rules beforehand, you'd feel less desire to be a rules lawyer and talk to me after a session?

Well, I for one would be less likely to complain about a particular house rule if I heard about it beforehand. Likewise, I'd also explain my style of play and pet peeves so as to better avoid any problems that might occur.

Well in my case if someone wanted to join a game I was running right now, I;d just give them a link to my house rules on personal wiki and say "read this. if you have questions ask"

[Ravenwing]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

<Shrug>
Not really. Rules Lawyers are Rules Lawyers, and need not apply to a Game I'm running, or even playing in. I can't stand the arguments during a game.
Like I said in my first post, I explain how things work to my players. Those that agree I'm glad to have in the game. those that can't can walk.

[Colt47]

You people and your personal wikis.

[jaymz]

You people and your personal wikis.

It's cleaner looking than a personal forum and it allows me to post up all of my *whispers* conversions but you didn't hear that from me......

[Ravenwing]

You people and your personal wikis.

It's cleaner looking than a personal forum and it allows me to post up all of my *whispers* conversions but you didn't hear that from me......

Do these whispers involve how to make aluminum foil hats, and where the shooters really were in the JFK assassination?

[Nightmask]

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

<Shrug>
Not really. Rules Lawyers are Rules Lawyers, and need not apply to a Game I'm running, or even playing in. I can't stand the arguments during a game.
Like I said in my first post, I explain how things work to my players. Those that agree I'm glad to have in the game. those that can't can walk.

The question is do you treat anyone questioning a ruling or pointing something out as a Rules Lawyer? Because Rules Lawyers can be difficult to tell apart from a player who's just questioning something and knows it's not going to be of any value waiting until a game is over (after all 'hey wait that ruling will mean my character lost his arm!' is NOT something you can put off until the end of the night when it's too late to do anything about it).

[jaymz]

You people and your personal wikis.

It's cleaner looking than a personal forum and it allows me to post up all of my *whispers* conversions but you didn't hear that from me......

Do these whispers involve how to make aluminum foil hats, and where the shooters really were in the JFK assassination?

Maaaaaaaaybe

[Damian Magecraft]

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

<Shrug>
Not really. Rules Lawyers are Rules Lawyers, and need not apply to a Game I'm running, or even playing in. I can't stand the arguments during a game.
Like I said in my first post, I explain how things work to my players. Those that agree I'm glad to have in the game. those that can't can walk.

The question is do you treat anyone questioning a ruling or pointing something out as a Rules Lawyer? Because Rules Lawyers can be difficult to tell apart from a player who's just questioning something and knows it's not going to be of any value waiting until a game is over (after all 'hey wait that ruling will mean my character lost his arm!' is NOT something you can put off until the end of the night when it's too late to do anything about it).

Thats why I apply the 5 minute rule...
If you disagree with a Ruling I make;
you have 5 minutes to calmly & rationally state your case. (If you ignore the calm and rational part... I will dismiss your point out of hand.)
I will listen; this does not mean that will reverse my decision; only that I will consider your point.
If you still disagree with me after that...
you really only have two options:
1: wait til after the session when we can calmly and rationally discuss the ruling at length.
or
2: quit the game (typically the ones who do this tend to throw a tantrum first).

[Vrykolas2k]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

So for example, if you were to play in my game, which I am always sure to make new players understand my house rules beforehand, you'd feel less desire to be a rules lawyer and talk to me after a session?

Yep.

[Vrykolas2k]

Honestly, the most common mistakes I see GMs make is making players powerless in situations where they should be having some kind of interactivity. This includes the "steal from the PC's to get them to go where you want them to go", to more grizzly scenarios such as killing a particular PC in their sleep, or taking control of a character for comic relief. I don't normally run into this problem when playing with people I know, but it seems to happen chronically in Online Rifts games (not sure about others as I haven't really tried online play). An event in a game should be fun for both the players and the GM: not one or the other. Heck, I've done a lot of retconning myself when a particular decision didn't float well with one of my players.

On another note, I do agree with Flatline that rules lawyers are products of their environment for the most part. They want something to hold on to that gives them a say in matters in order to combat a decision that they have an issue with.

I've never known a rules Lawyer who did this.

Simply put Rules Lawyers cheat. That's their job. They twist every rule to THEIR benefit. That's a Rules Lawyer. They're just another version of a Munchkin. They only use the rules to get ahead, and screw over everyone at the table, GM and fellow players alike. They care nothing about being a part of the group, or story, or anything but themselves. They're selfish inbred swine that ruin things for everyone.

As to the kind your describing, it still sounds selfish to me. If you disagree with a decision, wait until after the game to bring it up. If the rest of the players are having a good time, stopping the game because one player disagree's with a call seems extremely childish to me.

This even includes things for stupid GM Fiat( which is what I'd term your examples of the GM) Bad GM's are a problem, but they're mostly a Player created one. If the Players take the GM aside and tell him the problem, and how he should solve it, you'd be surprised to find they'll change.

Of course there are some GM's that just get off on a power trip. These GM's aren't much different then a Rules Lawyer/munchkin and should just be avoided.

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

So for example, if you were to play in my game, which I am always sure to make new players understand my house rules beforehand, you'd feel less desire to be a rules lawyer and talk to me after a session?

Yep.

[ZorValachan]

My $, for what it's worth.

A lot of what i read above is not my definition of a rules lawyer. There are people who are knowledgable about laws and those who are lawyers. Lawyers argue so their side wins. Rules lawyers are in this way arguing so that their side wins, be it the player, the character, or players, characters. The goal is for the other side to lose, be it GM or other players/characters. If 2 different rules covering the same thing are present, the knowledgeable person will state both and ask the GM which he uses, the Rules lawyer will only state the one that benefits him. In the next game, week, month, year he will state the other rule if that rule now benefits him.

People knowledgeable in the rules can help the game. Helping the GM find a book and page, while the GM focuses on something else. The lawyer will bog down the game trying to win. They are separate beasts and should not be confused. A person knowledgeable about the rules is correct in questioning a GM's call, if it violates the rules. It is the GM's responsibility to 1) realize he made a mistake and be man enough to admit it, 2) explain he knows the rule, but this is an exception and will explain it after a time (maybe it is a secret power an NPC/monster has that should suprise the PCs), or 3) point to the list of House rules that he handed out to the group before play (he of course being a fair and just arbitrator of the rules has done this).

The person knowledgeable about the rules will accept this. The rules lawyer will argue against it. Therein lies the difference

[Ravenwing]

Depends on the rules lawyer.
Argue all you want, but it's the truth.
Case in point, me. A bad GM turned me into one... I actually quit gaming entirely for a bit over a year.
So now I rules lawyer when it looks like someone is about to be screwed over. As for the wait until the game's over... ya, tried that, but once screwed how does one get unscrewed?
It's best to run games in such a way that everyone knows what to expect, and be consistent.

<Shrug>
Not really. Rules Lawyers are Rules Lawyers, and need not apply to a Game I'm running, or even playing in. I can't stand the arguments during a game.
Like I said in my first post, I explain how things work to my players. Those that agree I'm glad to have in the game. those that can't can walk.

The question is do you treat anyone questioning a ruling or pointing something out as a Rules Lawyer? Because Rules Lawyers can be difficult to tell apart from a player who's just questioning something and knows it's not going to be of any value waiting until a game is over (after all 'hey wait that ruling will mean my character lost his arm!' is NOT something you can put off until the end of the night when it's too late to do anything about it).

No, in the above example I wouldn't treat the player as a rules lawyer, after all it is a understandable question. I'd try to explain why he was losing an arm, and then try to move on. It's when the game breaks down into one long arguement that I start shaking my head.

But then again, given the power of magic, and the ability to regenerate missing limbs, as a player I wouldn't take it so bad if the GM ruled I lost an arm because he was using say, a critical hit table of his own devising, or one from like say a rifter or something. Even an online fanpage resource.
Or if I'd done something stupid as a pc, like say.....
Sticking my arm in a hole in the wall to get the beautiful(And easily 500000 GP Value) sapphire just sitting there. )Lol, tell me you remember that adventure! It's a classic. IDK how many times I lost a body part before finally figuring out how to get the gem.) if something happens based on my own player stupidity, I don' hold it against the GM.
Likewise, if my PC's do something stupid( Like the hole in the wall, or attacking a Gazebo ) then I unleash the full power of the dice, I don't even try to fudge for them.
And I'll admit, as a GM I fudge rolls for the players. I also admit that if the players are having to easy of a time, I fudge the rolls the otherway as well. The GM's job is to set the story that the players are taking part in. What fun is a story that's to hard, or to easy? If the PC's are doomed to failure then why bother? Likewise if they can't lose, why bother? I don't make it easy on them, but I want them to have a feeling of accomplishment when its all said and done.

[Ravenwing]

You people and your personal wikis.

It's cleaner looking than a personal forum and it allows me to post up all of my *whispers* conversions but you didn't hear that from me......

Do these whispers involve how to make aluminum foil hats, and where the shooters really were in the JFK assassination?

Maaaaaaaaybe

My kinda whispers then.

[Giant2005]

Here's a question: Is it still considered rules lawyering if the lawyer uses the rules to his own detriment?
Here's an example: The GM allows enemies to shoot the player without a called shot when he is behind cover but he still insists on using nothing but called shots when he is attacking his enemies which happen to be behind cover.

Would that player who just wants to follow the rules still carry the same negative connotations?

[Nightmask]

The question is do you treat anyone questioning a ruling or pointing something out as a Rules Lawyer? Because Rules Lawyers can be difficult to tell apart from a player who's just questioning something and knows it's not going to be of any value waiting until a game is over (after all 'hey wait that ruling will mean my character lost his arm!' is NOT something you can put off until the end of the night when it's too late to do anything about it).

No, in the above example I wouldn't treat the player as a rules lawyer, after all it is a understandable question. I'd try to explain why he was losing an arm, and then try to move on. It's when the game breaks down into one long arguement that I start shaking my head.

But then again, given the power of magic, and the ability to regenerate missing limbs, as a player I wouldn't take it so bad if the GM ruled I lost an arm because he was using say, a critical hit table of his own devising, or one from like say a rifter or something. Even an online fanpage resource.
Or if I'd done something stupid as a pc, like say.....
Sticking my arm in a hole in the wall to get the beautiful(And easily 500000 GP Value) sapphire just sitting there. )Lol, tell me you remember that adventure! It's a classic. IDK how many times I lost a body part before finally figuring out how to get the gem.) if something happens based on my own player stupidity, I don' hold it against the GM.
Likewise, if my PC's do something stupid( Like the hole in the wall, or attacking a Gazebo ) then I unleash the full power of the dice, I don't even try to fudge for them.
And I'll admit, as a GM I fudge rolls for the players. I also admit that if the players are having to easy of a time, I fudge the rolls the otherway as well. The GM's job is to set the story that the players are taking part in. What fun is a story that's to hard, or to easy? If the PC's are doomed to failure then why bother? Likewise if they can't lose, why bother? I don't make it easy on them, but I want them to have a feeling of accomplishment when its all said and done.

Well magical regeneration isn't that available in Rifts, otherwise there'd be far fewer partial and full conversion borgs running around (many after all aren't that way by choice, other than the choice of 'do I get bionics to replace my missing arm or risk death because I was a limb short when I most needed it?'). Unless you're making it available for a reasonable cost (which would certainly have an impact on the game even if subtly) that's not something a player could depend on for his character.

I imagine many remember those tales, the one being I believe it's call 'schmuck bait' (like the expensive magical armor in one Eye Of The Beholder game, pick it up and your group is trapped to die in a sealed room).

[Ravenwing]

The question is do you treat anyone questioning a ruling or pointing something out as a Rules Lawyer? Because Rules Lawyers can be difficult to tell apart from a player who's just questioning something and knows it's not going to be of any value waiting until a game is over (after all 'hey wait that ruling will mean my character lost his arm!' is NOT something you can put off until the end of the night when it's too late to do anything about it).

No, in the above example I wouldn't treat the player as a rules lawyer, after all it is a understandable question. I'd try to explain why he was losing an arm, and then try to move on. It's when the game breaks down into one long arguement that I start shaking my head.

But then again, given the power of magic, and the ability to regenerate missing limbs, as a player I wouldn't take it so bad if the GM ruled I lost an arm because he was using say, a critical hit table of his own devising, or one from like say a rifter or something. Even an online fanpage resource.
Or if I'd done something stupid as a pc, like say.....
Sticking my arm in a hole in the wall to get the beautiful(And easily 500000 GP Value) sapphire just sitting there. )Lol, tell me you remember that adventure! It's a classic. IDK how many times I lost a body part before finally figuring out how to get the gem.) if something happens based on my own player stupidity, I don' hold it against the GM.
Likewise, if my PC's do something stupid( Like the hole in the wall, or attacking a Gazebo ) then I unleash the full power of the dice, I don't even try to fudge for them.
And I'll admit, as a GM I fudge rolls for the players. I also admit that if the players are having to easy of a time, I fudge the rolls the otherway as well. The GM's job is to set the story that the players are taking part in. What fun is a story that's to hard, or to easy? If the PC's are doomed to failure then why bother? Likewise if they can't lose, why bother? I don't make it easy on them, but I want them to have a feeling of accomplishment when its all said and done.

Well magical regeneration isn't that available in Rifts, otherwise there'd be far fewer partial and full conversion borgs running around (many after all aren't that way by choice, other than the choice of 'do I get bionics to replace my missing arm or risk death because I was a limb short when I most needed it?'). Unless you're making it available for a reasonable cost (which would certainly have an impact on the game even if subtly) that's not something a player could depend on for his character.

I imagine many remember those tales, the one being I believe it's call 'schmuck bait' (like the expensive magical armor in one Eye Of The Beholder game, pick it up and your group is trapped to die in a sealed room).

My PC's( Both those that I play, and those that run under me) tend to have a lot of cash( I'm known as something of a monty haul kinda GM I admit, but I figure the PC's need something more then XP, and without cash how can they afford all the booze and serving wenches that are so a part of the Adventurer Lifestyle?) And besides, one of your friends losing an arm, and the group undergoing a quest to restore it by finding the Wizard(Or cleric) who can restore it is generally a fun time for all(And full of one armed men clapping jokes!)

[Damian Magecraft]

The problem with regeneration is knowing how much time passes between each action the is done. Our normal GM does not use any standard time span for combat or resting. We are constantly asking how much time has passed since something happened.

I get asked that quite a bit as a GM as well...
My answer seems to satisfy my players...
"In my worlds; just like in TV and Movies; Time travels at the speed of plot"

[ZorValachan]

Here's a question: Is it still considered rules lawyering if the lawyer uses the rules to his own detriment?
Here's an example: The GM allows enemies to shoot the player without a called shot when he is behind cover but he still insists on using nothing but called shots when he is attacking his enemies which happen to be behind cover.

Would that player who just wants to follow the rules still carry the same negative connotations?

No,
read my above post. A rules lawyer, just like a real lawyer will not do anything against himself (on purpose). The whole lawyer part is to win for his 'side' of the argument. In your case you just have a guy following the rules. it would be perfectly legitamite to ask the GM if this is a house rule or special circumstance so he could play the proper rules (calling shots or not worrying about them himself).

[Damian Magecraft]

Speed of plot is a good idea, but not when you need to roll every ten minutes or every five minutes. I lost several characters because of not knowing the time span. If I did not ask about time, our rules lawyer would be the only one regenerating. Only he would regenerate after every action of every player if he could.

rolls based upon time I handle simply...
In combat you should as a player know how long a melee lasts and when you need to make a roll.
During travel or "down time" (that space of time between scenes) then the rolls are made only if recovery is needed. (Ie: if 3hrs have passed and you need to roll 1d6 recovered hp/sdc every 15 mins then you would roll 12d6 at the start of the scene.)
But I take it that you mean your GM does not take into account if its 3mins; 3 hours; or 3 days between scenes and inform you? That I will agree is poor GMing.
I have a standing rule of if I do not mention the length of time passed between scenes then the players can assume that no less than 6hrs have passed (typically most adventure scenes take place with in 6 hrs of a base camp in my games).

[Damian Magecraft]

Damian, you have just settled the one problem I been having with my usual GM. Thank you very much.

NP...
typically mistakes like that one are common to in-experienced GMs or ones that have never had the issue occur in their games.
You do learn a few things over a 25 year gm stint.
its only fair to pass them along.

[jaymz]

Has anybody ever have a rules lawyer who not only worship the rules but also thinks that everything in the books is the words written in stone? The rules lawyer in my gaming group is now trying to use the creators of Rifts names in his screwing of the game.

I was running the game and the rules lawyer decided to open his mouth and screw everything up by saying that it is not what Kevin Siembieda, Josh Hilden, or what Joshua Sanford had in mind when they created Dead Reigns. If it was Robotech, he would say the same about them too. Four people have already quit playing because of him and he is making me want to stop playing.

Rifts is my refugee and my sanctuary away from my normal problems in an easy, and fun thing.

Simple. Kick his butt out. If he is the problem get rid of the problem. Also Dead Reign is 90% Kevin. He rewrote what Josh submitted.

What their intentions was is also irrelevant. Why? because no one can read their minds so we must go on what our "interpretation" of what their intent was. If he doesn't like it tell him to take a walk.

[jaymz]

Only problem with kicking him out is that it is not my house we play at. It is our normal GMs house we play at.

Unless he has dirty pics it seems to me no one wants to play with this sad sack. Player vote to ditch him.

[jaymz]

I am going to play in a different group for one week to see if it is better or not. The new group is made of players trying to get away from the rules lawyer.

Ah but then you run the risk of the rules lawyer finding out which will cause and even bigger kerfuffle I would think.

[Damian Magecraft]

Has anybody ever have a rules lawyer who not only worship the rules but also thinks that everything in the books is the words written in stone? The rules lawyer in my gaming group is now trying to use the creators of Rifts names in his screwing of the game.

I was running the game and the rules lawyer decided to open his mouth and screw everything up by saying that it is not what Kevin Siembieda, Josh Hilden, or what Joshua Sanford had in mind when they created Dead Reigns. If it was Robotech, he would say the same about them too. Four people have already quit playing because of him and he is making me want to stop playing.

Rifts is my refugee and my sanctuary away from my normal problems in an easy, and fun thing.

ok this guy is easy to shut down...

It is your game use what you want ignore what you dont

repeat this mantra to him endlessly...
he will either shut up or quit

[Nightmask]

If I don't get away from the rules lawyer, I might end up getting into more serious trouble that I don't need. The rules lawyer has already started with the other four and they all want to hurt him. They all banded and created their own gaming group so they don't have to worry about seeing the rules lawyer and having him start trouble for any of them.

The rules lawyer seems to want to have a fight with the way he is going. The other players don't want to fight and get arrested because of the rules lawyer. Nobody needs the trouble some rules lawyers are striving to have happen.

Someone's sounding REALLY stupid to be pushing things to that point RL, no game should ever reach that point with regards to player animosity.

[Nightmask]

The rules lawyer will go by the rules and stricter rules when something is not what he wants. He bends the rules or ignores them completely if it benefits him. I am the one player who started out playing the one to calm everybody down until I seen one of his characters was Hercules from the Rifts Gods book.

All the rule lawyer did was changed a few skills, the name, and gave the character power armor weapons. None of my characters would use a power armor weapon because of the weight, kick, and payload might crush some. I talked to several GMs about an RCC I found online and wanted to use it in both Robotech and Dead Reigns.

I used their advice and made my character even more vulnerable thanks to the flaws of the mega hero in Heroes Unlimited. The rules lawyer still argues that my characters are to powerful for any of the Rifts systems. How can a supernaturally strong humanoid be to strong for Dead Reigns, Robotech, or Heroes Unlimited where their are plenty of supernatural beings in those systems already?

One player wanted a new type of APC, so I designed him one that was a techno-wizards style vehicle. The rules lawyer said that it was not allowed since it was a custom creation even though I used the Splicers book and every book I have with information about Techno-wizard customizations. I even had the normal GM and my old GM check the thing out and they both agreed it was no more powerful then a Deathshead transport only driven on four tracks.

Every item anybody creates that the rules lawyer does not like, he complains about the creation until it ends up not being used at all. Some of the things are actually pretty cool and very helpful for the party.

Example is the game we had last night. I created a new type of hummvee for Dead Reigns, the rules lawyer wanted to blow it up because he did not like it. The other players wanted to keep it because of the way it looked. I used two modern day military vehicles and combined them into one.

Sounds more like a petty jerk than a Rules Lawyer, particularly that last bit about wanting to destroy the vehicle just because he didn't like it. He just finds playing with the rules to be his best outlet for his jerkiness.

[jaymz]

The rules lawyer will go by the rules and stricter rules when something is not what he wants. He bends the rules or ignores them completely if it benefits him. I am the one player who started out playing the one to calm everybody down until I seen one of his characters was Hercules from the Rifts Gods book.

All the rule lawyer did was changed a few skills, the name, and gave the character power armor weapons. None of my characters would use a power armor weapon because of the weight, kick, and payload might crush some. I talked to several GMs about an RCC I found online and wanted to use it in both Robotech and Dead Reigns.

I used their advice and made my character even more vulnerable thanks to the flaws of the mega hero in Heroes Unlimited. The rules lawyer still argues that my characters are to powerful for any of the Rifts systems. How can a supernaturally strong humanoid be to strong for Dead Reigns, Robotech, or Heroes Unlimited where their are plenty of supernatural beings in those systems already?

One player wanted a new type of APC, so I designed him one that was a techno-wizards style vehicle. The rules lawyer said that it was not allowed since it was a custom creation even though I used the Splicers book and every book I have with information about Techno-wizard customizations. I even had the normal GM and my old GM check the thing out and they both agreed it was no more powerful then a Deathshead transport only driven on four tracks.

Every item anybody creates that the rules lawyer does not like, he complains about the creation until it ends up not being used at all. Some of the things are actually pretty cool and very helpful for the party.

Example is the game we had last night. I created a new type of hummvee for Dead Reigns, the rules lawyer wanted to blow it up because he did not like it. The other players wanted to keep it because of the way it looked. I used two modern day military vehicles and combined them into one.

Seriously why are youeven letting this guy play?

[Ravenwing]

If I don't get away from the rules lawyer, I might end up getting into more serious trouble that I don't need. The rules lawyer has already started with the other four and they all want to hurt him. They all banded and created their own gaming group so they don't have to worry about seeing the rules lawyer and having him start trouble for any of them.

The rules lawyer seems to want to have a fight with the way he is going. The other players don't want to fight and get arrested because of the rules lawyer. Nobody needs the trouble some rules lawyers are striving to have happen.

Someone's sounding REALLY stupid to be pushing things to that point RL, no game should ever reach that point with regards to player animosity.

Idk, I've found that sometimes, people just need a good punch or two to the head to knock them outta the whole 'I'm a Jerk, and you must suffer me' thing.

Sure it means going to jail(sometimes, depends on what the other players say happened, and where you live. I live in New Mexico and we still have that Wild West mentality. At worse you're looking at an assault charge, at best it's just disorderly conduct/brawling, which means a 24 hour stay in county, and a $50 fine, I'm ok with that. )

Plus you know you had a hand in straightening someone out, cause rarely will the jerk be a jerk again.
Atleast around you

[jaymz]

I don't invite the jerk to play in our game. He is a close friend of our normal GM. If I was to punch the guy, I would not get a simple night in jail and simple fine. I would get the maximum for it.

The other guys the jerk started his harassment with all decided not to hit the jerk because of the respect we all have for our normal GM. Since it is the normal GMs home we play in, and don't want to wake his family up with a lot of loud noises and breaking things too. It is easier for us to go to a new place and play when the jerk is not around and unable to join in.

Why does this normal GM allow this guys behavior to take place? Seems ot me he needs to be the one to tell this jerk to buzz off or straighten up.

[Damian Magecraft]

I don't invite the jerk to play in our game. He is a close friend of our normal GM. If I was to punch the guy, I would not get a simple night in jail and simple fine. I would get the maximum for it.

The other guys the jerk started his harassment with all decided not to hit the jerk because of the respect we all have for our normal GM. Since it is the normal GMs home we play in, and don't want to wake his family up with a lot of loud noises and breaking things too. It is easier for us to go to a new place and play when the jerk is not around and unable to join in.

honestly just moving on to a new (which you and 4 others have decided to do) is the best option for dealing with this guy.
(although it does sound like this guy does need an "attitude adjustment")

[Nightmask]

I don't invite the jerk to play in our game. He is a close friend of our normal GM. If I was to punch the guy, I would not get a simple night in jail and simple fine. I would get the maximum for it.

The other guys the jerk started his harassment with all decided not to hit the jerk because of the respect we all have for our normal GM. Since it is the normal GMs home we play in, and don't want to wake his family up with a lot of loud noises and breaking things too. It is easier for us to go to a new place and play when the jerk is not around and unable to join in.

Why does this normal GM allow this guys behavior to take place? Seems ot me he needs to be the one to tell this jerk to buzz off or straighten up.

I have to wonder about that too, if they're friends he needs to recheck some of the requirements of friendship as a friend's got a duty to tell another friend he's being a jerk and causing problems because his actions are hurting him. The bad friend is driving off the good guy's players and diminishing his fun and that's not what a friend should be doing.

[jaymz]

Want to get rid of him. Tell him everyone has to play an average statted vagabond with plastic man armour and an NG laser pistol. He will LOSE it since he won't be "special"

[Damian Magecraft]

Want to get rid of him. Tell him everyone has to play an average statted vagabond with plastic man armour and an NG laser pistol. He will LOSE it since he won't be "special"

I still say take him out back behind the house and beat some sense in his head.
As for his military brother? Tell him his brother put the team (the game group) in danger by ignoring the team leader (the GM) and you were forced to re-educate him or frag him. You chose re-education rather than frag since fragging is so final.

[Ravenwing]

It sounds to me like they're a young group.
Personally I'd beat the guy senseless, then tell him to get his brother, and his dad, I'd beat them senseless to. Then after I did so, I'd point out that they were sticking up for a guy who couldn't even win his own fights.
Just my two cents.

[Damian Magecraft]

It sounds to me like they're a young group.
Personally I'd beat the guy senseless, then tell him to get his brother, and his dad, I'd beat them senseless to. Then after I did so, I'd point out that they were sticking up for a guy who couldn't even win his own fights.
Just my two cents.

cant be that young if one of them claims to have been playing Palladium since 1988...

[The Beast]

Most of the others are afraid of the rules lawyers big brother who is in the military, the rules lawyer might cry to his big brother and that might cause even bigger trouble for the normal GM and his family. I don't care about the rules lawyer and his big brother at all, but I do respect the normal GM and his family. The rules lawyer does not seem to know what respect means or how it can help him in the long run.

I talked to the normal GM about the rules lawyer a few hours ago and he is ready to either kick him out or restrict him to one game session a month. That would allow all the others to come back and really enjoy the game without having to worry about the rules lawyer. If the normal GM does kick the rules lawyer out, thenI know even more people will come and play Rifts at the house which would be even more fun for all.

What could he possibly do that would cause that?

[Nightmask]

The rules lawyers older brother is suppose to be a Marine. I worked with several Marines in my life, and some are a bit crazy in their own ways. If the rules lawyer got into the whole troubles thanks to his little brother, then there can be even more troubles for the normal GM and his family.

It is best if I just went and played Rifts with the others who are pissed and hate the rules lawyer for a while. Safer for him and everybody else in the place.

This sounds really on the insane side, with so much physical violence being considered and feared over a game. Someone's in need of therapy if he's treating or looks like he's treating the game so seriously he'd engage in or solicit acts of violence over it.