eliakon wrote:its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?
That's a matter of opinion. Since it's a player's choice whether or not to participate in a game that a GM runs, they can definitely have a say in what rules the GM uses (voting with their feet).
Also your example is narrow because much of this conversation could apply to player v. player conflict, not player v. GM.
It isn't right to accuse a player of fun-ruining if a GM suddenly changes a rule and a player doesn't like it.
eliakon wrote:That is exactly the argument that put forward by a rules lawyer that is disliked by most people.
You do not speak for 'most people'. If you want to convey opinions please only say "I dislike this", and perhaps convey the opinions of close friends whom you might speak for, but it is wrong for any of us to assume to speak for the majority of people or gamers.
What particularly do YOU dislike about the argument? Why do you dislike it? That is the critical thing here. That people (and how many people) dislike something is, by itself, not a wholesome criticism.
eliakon wrote:The concept that "this game has the following rules, and we can and must use them, and only them." The printed rules are so that everyone has the same baseline to start from but the individual variations will be just that, variations.
Players should still be informed of changes to reality though.
eliakon wrote:If I choose to drop Alignments from my game, I am STILL playing Rifts, I just don't use a rule I find silly.
That's fine, but if a GM drops alignments he should inform players, so that they know that suddenly, abilities that may have shaped some players (like being able to sense supernatural EVIL) are suddenly useless, and have effectively been retconned out of any past gaming sessions.
eliakon wrote:There is no requirement anywhere that all rules ever published be used in all situations with no exceptions, and in fact in some games that would be impossible. That's why you have a GM (you know Game Master, that's why they have that name instead of something like 'referee')
Rules lawyers take no issue when a GM clearly states "I am not using X rule" or "I am introducing new rule Y" so long as this is done blatently and with player agreement.
The problem occurs when GMs introduce rules without telling players about them, rules which alter characters and the universe they exist in, as that influences how people are roleplayed.
Rune weapons, for example (or Magic Weapons in HU) work a lot differently in a universe without alignments.
Damian Magecraft wrote:here is the reason for the "hate" META GAMING Its the same reason Min/Maxers get flack
Dog used the example argument of "If I had known X I wouldnt have tried Z" Which is pure bunk 90% of the time with Rules Lawyers.
The flaw in this criticism is meta-gaming is easily diagnosed.
While characters being roleplayed do not know the rules, they DO know the reality that those rules create.
Therefore if you are roleplaying a character, taking your understanding of the rules into account while playing them is perfectly valid.
If you play a character the same way in an RMB world with no penalty for dodging energy weapons, and a RUE world with a huge penalty for dodging energy weapons, then you're roleplaying badly.
People would have entirely different opinions about ranged combat and when to engage in it based on the reality the rules create.
So a rules "lawyer" usually has a completely valid objection when GMs introduce new rules to a campaign without explanation, changes them on the fly, introduces them on the fly, etc. They often introduce rules which effectively alter the very reality someone lives in. Rules that may have changed what resulted in previous gaming sessions, results that shape how a character is roleplayed.
Ignoring the dodge penalization, if we look at the removal of automatic body flip for Commandos, that's another issue. Previously, Commandos would have more freely launched themself into a crowd of attackers, since they could have easily kept them tangled up. Similarly, a player group would have been hesitant even to gang up on a Commando.
By removing their automatic defense, it alters the reality in which Commandos exist, and what Commandos ARE. The effectiveness of PCs and NPCs alike is compromised, and this WOULD affect the roleplaying.
Damian Magecraft wrote:Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart)
Never heard this different Guru term. I'd argue certain virtues are probably being applied to Gurus which many of us see in Lawyers.
Damian Magecraft wrote:If after 5 minutes the RL continues to argue I point to rule 2 and hand him a blank character sheet saying "obviously you are dissatisfied with your current character perhaps a new one will make for a more enjoyable game for you?" That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.
No, it isn't the only way to deal with them. That's called being a Killer GM, someone players are often dissatisfied with.
If a CS Commando suddenly stripped of an automatic body flip is angry about that (because up until now, he has been taking awareness of that ability into consideration) his objection is completely legitimate. As would the objections of a Juicer (who could previously auto-dodge lasers reliably) who (due to penalties) lost this ability. Rule changes without explanations are effectively ret-cons to a universe.
If a campaign happened in an astral realm, you could introduce an explanation like 'The Astral Lord has made gunfire harder to avoid by warping reality itself" then that would be cool. But reality changing on a whim because a GM got a new book or wants to introduce a new rule (which should have been applied to earlier events) without explanation, that's a huge thing which should have some explanation.
The problem here is when GMs don't do adequate storytelling to explain changes. Not players who are confused by them. Classic example of victim-blaming. Blame the mortals, not the omnipotent reality-creators.
Damian Magecraft wrote:And that's where you are wrong Dog. It's not the the wannabes that get bent. It's the Rules Lawyer. Part of the problem is you are confusing a Rules Guru (knowledgeable in the rules but also allows the GM slack) with the perjorative term Rules Lawyer.
You say 'confusing' as if you're the arbiter of how we define what a Rules Lawyer is. I haven't even heard of a 'Guru' until now, feels like you're inventing it. However long it's been around, I bet it's new compared to Lawyer.
Damian Magecraft wrote:The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.
Yeah, it carries negative connotations to those who hate lawyers. Not everyone uses the term negatively. Some of us who like lawyers apply less insulting stereotypes to it, and simply use it to describe people who are knowledgeable of the rules and who advocate for them.
Damian Magecraft wrote:The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.
Yeah... no. That seems like some stuff you're just making up about rules lawyers. It's like you're dividing rules lawyers into a bad kind (for which you retain 'lawyer') and a good kind (for which you introduce 'guru').
Rules lawyers can respond any way with their knowledge. Some fairly, some not. A fair lawyer will not balk if a 'loophole' (a subjective label) hurts their PC as much (or more) as it helps.
Damian Magecraft wrote:who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?
Both. Deciding what is right and wrong is a collaborative effort. Players can leave a campaign they don't like, and if enough do that, there is no campaign anymore and the GM's just writing an NPC novel.
Damian Magecraft wrote:Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.
You're just engaging in malicious stereotypes against rules lawyers now. You're applying meanings to the term based on your notion of them, and not the broader concept that people accept. You are describing a particular concept.
RLs are capable of being quiet, and of voicing their opinions without shouting. They can attempt to make points without drowning out opposition.
Damian Magecraft wrote:The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.
More of your imaginary 'rules guru' here I see. I refuse to accept your new term as it is being used to wrongly malign the term lawyer.
Damian Magecraft wrote:You show a wannabe RL they are wrong and those are the ones that tend to argue; the wannabes.
The problem here is it relies on the assumption that they are wrong, or that they were properly shown to be wrong, or that they believe they are wrong. All things that may not be true.
Damian Magecraft wrote:Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.
There are different kinds of dominance. Bullying players may be more immediately dominant, but in the long-term is makes players lose respect and trust in their GM, which is not healthy for an enjoyable gaming environment.