Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[Damian Magecraft]

I am in therapy for violence, but that is because I was stationed in Iraq. The normal GM is a gentle guy like the rest of his family and don't need to see violence like I seen the most of my life. The rules lawyer would bring in his brother and other friends just to mess with the normal GM and that is not right.

then the regular GM needs to get away from this guy fast...
if he is so unstable as to involve his brother in terrorizing a family then the man needs to separate himself from this psycho.

[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.

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

I missed that part. It's just it reminded me of High School stuff.

[Ravenwing]

I am in therapy for violence, but that is because I was stationed in Iraq. The normal GM is a gentle guy like the rest of his family and don't need to see violence like I seen the most of my life. The rules lawyer would bring in his brother and other friends just to mess with the normal GM and that is not right.

then the regular GM needs to get away from this guy fast...
if he is so unstable as to involve his brother in terrorizing a family then the man needs to separate himself from this psycho.

Yeah that sounds like restraining order psycho, not 'I'm a jerk'.

[Noon]

I don't invite the jerk to play in our game. He is a close friend of our normal GM.

Well, I'd stop playing with this GM. If he can see his friend is annoying to you but does nothing about it, then he's in on the poor behaviour just as much.

Seriously, playing world of warcraft is better than putting up with this stuff!

[Shorty Lickens]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

Rules are just there to keep people from being angry and not wanting to play anymore. Since there are no official winners & losers they dont NEED to be followed strictly. The fun is your first priority. Stick to that and let the rules follow as best they can.

I think the dislike for rules lawyers is they got their priorities wrong, especially with deference to the other players. Sit him down and politely remind him what you are all doing there.

[Damian Magecraft]

The rules lawyer I been dealing with will try to add his own meaning to the rules so his characters can basically do everything needed. One trick is saying that every character can drive every vehicle even if they don't have the pilot skill, they just can't do trick driving is his excuse. By that meaning, then a character with an iq of under ten can fly a jet fighter in combat.

The campaign I ran the other night called for someone to drive an experimental Humvee that I created from something I helped build once. The rules lawyer said that anybody can drive it even though only four people had the skill pilot automobile. I said no and he kept up with it and even got huffy like my 8 year old niece would when she was not getting something she wanted.

The game lasted two hours because of him and the other players lost out on most of their experience points. The others found special items I put into the game for use during a later game that would be there to help save their lives. I ended up calling each player and giving them their correct experience points but not the rules lawyer.

In the games he runs, he gives my characters an average of 500 points but gives a person who has his character sit in a chair all night over 2000 points of experience. Another game he ran had the whole group playing soccer since he could not come up with anything else. Nobody wants to play soccer in Rifts for three hours.

The normal GM had a game where we all had to rescue a woman and child from aliens. The rules lawyer would pout and get upset because we all had to jump down a hole in the middle of a field. My character and another players character were the first two to jump down into the hole. Everybody else was ready to jump into the hole, one player had to have his character kick the rules lawyer's character into the hole.

If my rules lawyer does not get everything his own way, he turns into a copy of my little niece and complains and moans which is what makes everybody else mad.

Some rules lawyers need to just shut their mouths and not play Rifts or any other RPG game ever.

ok this tells me everything I need to know.
you need to follow this exactly to deal with him.
step 1: Tell him if he does not stop acting like a spoiled little girl you will deal with him in the exact same manner you would with such a child.

When he calls your bluff (and he will... This is an alpha male challenge he cant just let it go)
Step 2: Bend him over your knee and beat the living tar out of him. (its the only way you will get him to see the light).

Or
Step 1: kick his ass out of the group for good.
there is no step 2

[Killer Cyborg]

The rules lawyer I been dealing with will try to add his own meaning to the rules so his characters can basically do everything needed. One trick is saying that every character can drive every vehicle even if they don't have the pilot skill, they just can't do trick driving is his excuse. By that meaning, then a character with an iq of under ten can fly a jet fighter in combat.

The campaign I ran the other night called for someone to drive an experimental Humvee that I created from something I helped build once. The rules lawyer said that anybody can drive it even though only four people had the skill pilot automobile. I said no and he kept up with it and even got huffy like my 8 year old niece would when she was not getting something she wanted.

The game lasted two hours because of him and the other players lost out on most of their experience points. The others found special items I put into the game for use during a later game that would be there to help save their lives. I ended up calling each player and giving them their correct experience points but not the rules lawyer.

In the games he runs, he gives my characters an average of 500 points but gives a person who has his character sit in a chair all night over 2000 points of experience. Another game he ran had the whole group playing soccer since he could not come up with anything else. Nobody wants to play soccer in Rifts for three hours.

The normal GM had a game where we all had to rescue a woman and child from aliens. The rules lawyer would pout and get upset because we all had to jump down a hole in the middle of a field. My character and another players character were the first two to jump down into the hole. Everybody else was ready to jump into the hole, one player had to have his character kick the rules lawyer's character into the hole.

If my rules lawyer does not get everything his own way, he turns into a copy of my little niece and complains and moans which is what makes everybody else mad.

Some rules lawyers need to just shut their mouths and not play Rifts or any other RPG game ever.

None of that is rules-lawyerish, really.

[Killer Cyborg]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

[flatline]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

With all of that statement or just part of it?

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

With all of that statement or just part of it?

--flatline

All of it, to varying degree.
Though my objection to the last sentence is purely technical- you are in fact "winning" in a very real sense as long as you're having fun.
And the rest of my objection rests heavily on the distinction between "the purpose of the games is to have fun" and "the purpose most people have for playing games is to have fun."
The purpose of games isn't to have fun, it's to let us practice skills that reduce our chances of dying before we can procreate.
Just like the purpose of sex is not fun, and just like the purpose of eating food is not fun, although fun is certainly a welcome component of the experience, and is very often the primary motivator of those engaging in the activity.

It's something that I've gone into before, and likely will again.
Feel free to revive this old thread if you have any questions.

[Killer Cyborg]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

With all of that statement or just part of it?

--flatline

All of it, to varying degree.
Though my objection to the last sentence is purely technical- you are in fact "winning" in a very real sense as long as you're having fun.
And the rest of my objection rests heavily on the distinction between "the purpose of the games is to have fun" and "the purpose most people have for playing games is to have fun."
The purpose of games isn't to have fun, it's to let us practice skills that reduce our chances of dying before we can procreate.
Just like the purpose of sex is not fun, and just like the purpose of eating food is not fun, although fun is certainly a welcome component of the experience, and is very often the primary motivator of those engaging in the activity.

It's something that I've gone into before, and likely will again.
Feel free to revive this old thread if you have any questions.

Good example of taking it way to seriously.

By what standard?

[Nightmask]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

With all of that statement or just part of it?

--flatline

All of it, to varying degree.
Though my objection to the last sentence is purely technical- you are in fact "winning" in a very real sense as long as you're having fun.
And the rest of my objection rests heavily on the distinction between "the purpose of the games is to have fun" and "the purpose most people have for playing games is to have fun."
The purpose of games isn't to have fun, it's to let us practice skills that reduce our chances of dying before we can procreate.
Just like the purpose of sex is not fun, and just like the purpose of eating food is not fun, although fun is certainly a welcome component of the experience, and is very often the primary motivator of those engaging in the activity.

It's something that I've gone into before, and likely will again.
Feel free to revive this old thread if you have any questions.

A seriously cynical and inaccurate way of looking at things. Particularly the implication that those things are ONLY meant for serious, fun-deprived uses (like sex, hard-core Christians were very much of the 'sex is never to be enjoyed and only for reproduction' mindset and pointedly ignored if God meant for it not to be enjoyable he wouldn't have made it that way). While some games are for practicing skills and the like that does not mean all games are. RPG are not intended for anything but recreation, if someone wants to try and use it as an educational aid they can certainly attempt to do so but games certainly don't exist solely for education they do not have a single purpose to their existence.

[Killer Cyborg]

By what standard?

My standard.

No disagreement there, then.

The palladium gaming system has as much bearing on my life as squidbillies does. It is here in my house for my entertainment, as well as the entertainment of my friends. I do agree that having to use your imagination to create your surroundings instead of having them prefabbed is most likely a benefit in some way, but it is not to be taken seriously. Sure, it should be tough, but it needs to be something you are willing to do again next week.

I don't equate "taken seriously" with "something that I'm unwilling to do again next week."

I do this to blow off steam, and get away for one night out of the week, Not learn life lessons.

The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

But different stroke for different folks.

[Killer Cyborg]

The purpose of games is to have fun. The purpose of Role-playing games is JUST fun. There are no winners and losers. As long as everybody is enjoying themselves, you're all winning.

I disagree.

With all of that statement or just part of it?

--flatline

All of it, to varying degree.
Though my objection to the last sentence is purely technical- you are in fact "winning" in a very real sense as long as you're having fun.
And the rest of my objection rests heavily on the distinction between "the purpose of the games is to have fun" and "the purpose most people have for playing games is to have fun."
The purpose of games isn't to have fun, it's to let us practice skills that reduce our chances of dying before we can procreate.
Just like the purpose of sex is not fun, and just like the purpose of eating food is not fun, although fun is certainly a welcome component of the experience, and is very often the primary motivator of those engaging in the activity.

It's something that I've gone into before, and likely will again.
Feel free to revive this old thread if you have any questions.

A seriously cynical and inaccurate way of looking at things. Particularly the implication that those things are ONLY meant for serious, fun-deprived uses (like sex, hard-core Christians were very much of the 'sex is never to be enjoyed and only for reproduction' mindset and pointedly ignored if God meant for it not to be enjoyable he wouldn't have made it that way).

There was no such implication in my post.
I mentioned that fun is an important factor, just not the only or primary factor.

While some games are for practicing skills and the like that does not mean all games are.

I can't think of any games that do not involve some level of skill practice.

RPG are not intended for anything but recreation

How do you come to that conclusion?

[Killer Cyborg]

"How do you come to that conclusion?"

Says as much in the books.

Feel free to provide a quote.

When you take it seriously, its time to take a break. Maybe play cards or monopoly.

Why's that?

[Gamer]

So there you have it guys and gals you ONLY play rpgs for sex to have kids.

I guess the new saying is instead of " As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right!!" has to be changed to be "As long as your getting laid, you're doing it right!!"
They need to add this to the Rifts books maybe it will increase sales :
"Rifts: Getting people laid since 1990"
Make it at least a T-shirt anyway.
on the front "Rifts: Getting people laid since 1990"
on the back: "As long as your getting laid, you're doing it right!!"

[Nightmask]

A seriously cynical and inaccurate way of looking at things. Particularly the implication that those things are ONLY meant for serious, fun-deprived uses (like sex, hard-core Christians were very much of the 'sex is never to be enjoyed and only for reproduction' mindset and pointedly ignored if God meant for it not to be enjoyable he wouldn't have made it that way).

There was no such implication in my post.
I mentioned that fun is an important factor, just not the only or primary factor.

Yes there is such an implication, even if you don't recognize that fact. When people said that gaming was about fun you disagreed and stated that their purpose was to learn skills and find mates to procreate, you rejected in your statement the idea that fun was part of the equation.

While some games are for practicing skills and the like that does not mean all games are.

I can't think of any games that do not involve some level of skill practice.

While there is some level of things you have to learn in order to play a game the purpose of the games aren't to learn those skills as you stated. What skills you learn as a result of the game are incidental to its actual purpose. The purpose of an RPG is to entertain, it is not a vehicle to force skill learning onto people. What skills people may pick up or practice (like say math skills) aren't the purpose of the game but a secondary benefit.

RPG are not intended for anything but recreation

How do you come to that conclusion?

[/quote]

Because they're created and marketed as recreation not as educational tools (indeed they've been derided for decades as being just the opposite).

[Shorty Lickens]

There is NOTHING about role-playing that helps your chances to procreate.

[Killer Cyborg]

I've addressed some of the above posts in the other thread, where they're more on topic.

[Nightmask]

There is NOTHING about role-playing that helps your chances to procreate.

Man, you just cant let us have THIS one can you ?

Reality is harsh.

[Gamer]

There is NOTHING about role-playing that helps your chances to procreate.

Then you must be doing it wrong!!

[Ravenwing]

My wife and me game together to. I'm going to agree with the Bunny.

[Tor]

Killjoy what you describe has absolutely nothing to do with being a rules lawyer. 'Normal human' isn't even a power category in HU so the person is actually deviating from the rules.

Wanting to run a particular kind of campaign doesn't make someone a bad GM or a rules lawyer, it just means they and the players aren't in agreement about the kind of game they want to create, which is perfectly fine.

We could just as easily accuse players who don't want to play the characters the GM wants as 'ruining the GM's fun' as we could accuse a GM that imposes restrictions as ruining the player(s) fun.

Rather than assuming they are TRYING to make others not have fun (which seems like a malicious assumption) it's worth entertaining other ideas, like perhaps the GM might think that they could make the game fun and that the players might enjoy it if given a chance.

Also worth noting that Dead Reign PCs are basically normal humans...

[Mech-Viper Prime]

I view rule lawyers as the same way KevSim does.

[popscythe]

Weird, it's like this thread was designed to troll for angry responses.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Weird, it's like this thread was designed to troll for angry responses.

Well the crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

[Alrik Vas]

See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.

[Vrykolas2k]

There is NOTHING about role-playing that helps your chances to procreate.

Then you must be doing it wrong!!

Some places offer classes...

[Dog_O_War]

See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.

When I find that a rules lawyer is "contradicting" a ruling given out by the GM, it is actually the GM contradicting themselves and said rules lawyer calling them on it.

For example;
(start of game)
R.L.: "so we're playing by the book's rules, and those house-rules you have, right?"
GM: "yeah, that's the way I do it. It's totally fair for everyone"

(later in the game)
GM: "okay <action> happens; you all <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "why? the rules say that when 'Y' happens, we avoid 'X', like in this situation."
GM: "No. You all still <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "but that's not in the rules you said we were using. If I had known, I wouldn't have done 'Z'."
etc.

And that's how it plays out like 90% of the time.

Generally, this takes up time, and only one player has the will to take a stand, while other sheepish players will instead say nothing, or suck-up to the GM by "being on the GM's side". Again, other players will complain that such actions 'delay the game', but role-playing isn't golf - there is no 'rate of play' clause here.

There are a couple of things a player can do if their GM insists on being God (and not just playing them) for the game; Not play. But this option sucks.

Complain ineffectually to the others after the fact, creating a subversive atmosphere and ultimately doom the game. Which also sucks.

Or you can attempt the risky, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" technique. When the above situation happens (and not before), just add 150% of everything to your character, and when you get questioned on it, you say, "well if you're playing like the rules are a suggestion, then I have done nothing wrong here and my character is legitimate. If the rules aren't a suggestion, then I would more than happily go back to my original stats, so long as you go forth being fair and upholding your end of the agreement, which was that we were using said rules, modified by the rules you've given us copies for".

There is a lot to consider for both players and GMs when you play a game; namingly, that it is a game, first and foremost, and that games have rules.

[eliakon]

I have seen a really good explanation on another list/forum. It essentially goes like this
The name of the hobby is Role Playing Game. Some people emphasize one aspect over the other, some are more about the Role, and how people act, some about Playing and the mechanics, and some about Game, and if your winning or loosing. But they are ALL still in an RPG. Thus there is no one universal 'right way' to play, because each person will have different basic assumptions that they bring to the table.

[Nightmask]

I have seen a really good explanation on another list/forum. It essentially goes like this
The name of the hobby is Role Playing Game. Some people emphasize one aspect over the other, some are more about the Role, and how people act, some about Playing and the mechanics, and some about Game, and if your winning or loosing. But they are ALL still in an RPG. Thus there is no one universal 'right way' to play, because each person will have different basic assumptions that they bring to the table.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

[Tor]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

[Sureshot]

I have played with a few rules lawyers in my time. Some can be managed at the game table. more often than not they are a pain in the backside imo. I played Torg a few years ago. One of the players took a Ravagon. A evil creature with a very few good exceptions. One of the players took one as a class. We also had a techno-priest. Think inquistion France meets cyberpunk. The player running the priest roleplayed it perfectly. While very nervous at the demon in the groups midst decided to give the creature a chance and to set it on the path of good. The player who was running the Ravagon was also a attention seeker and someone who decided to stir things up at the table as well as a rules lawyer. After combat we had elminated some guards. The player decides to began eating the remains of the guards because and he gleefully pointed to a section in the Ravagons sourcebook where his kind were carnivores and cannibals. The technopriest kindly asks if he is beign serious. The other player says yes and gets taken out by a powerful miracle spell cast by the technopriest. With the technopriest shouting "begone evil demon". The other player got angry and walked awy from the table and left the building. No great loss. So while not every rules lawyer is distruptive it's been in my experience that those are few and far between.

On another subject any DM that pulls "I'm god at the table obey me" without god cause will see me waling from the table. Possibly with other players joining me as well. Not to mention anyone who pulls that crap better be running the game at their own homes or I'm kicking them out of my place. No exceptions. DMs/GMs forget one thing. They has as much power as players are willing to give them. anger enough players and your left playing rpg solitaire. I'm not saying give players all the power. Far from it. A dose of humilty is required from both sides of the table.

[DhAkael]

Not reading the O/P or any of the responses (because T.L.D.R. and not relevent); because rules lawyers are obnoxious, overbearing and completely destroy all "flow" to the game narative. ALSO as both player AND GM I have noticed that rules lawyers tend only to argue rules to benefit themselves and NOT for the good of the gaming group as a whole. I have in fact seen 99.99997% of ALL rules lawyers I've dealt with first hand argue a rule one way, and then in the same breath do a 180 and argue it another way (to the detriment of other players).
So the question is "why the hate" for this particular species of gaming parasite? Because they KILL games; they provide NOTHING positive.

In all things there is only one universal law; the final arbiter on all game mechanics is the GM.
Full-stop.
END
OF
LINE.

Spoiler:

Addendum to universal law of gaming: As long as the GM remains consistant and FAIR to all players.

[Giant2005]

Not reading the O/P or any of the responses (because T.L.D.R. and not relevent); because rules lawyers are obnoxious, overbearing and completely destroy all "flow" to the game narative. ALSO as both player AND GM I have noticed that rules lawyers tend only to argue rules to benefit themselves and NOT for the good of the gaming group as a whole. I have in fact seen 99.99997% of ALL rules lawyers I've dealt with first hand argue a rule one way, and then in the same breath do a 180 and argue it another way (to the detriment of other players).
So the question is "why the hate" for this particular type of person? Because they KILL games; they provide NOTHING positive.

In all things there is only one universal law; the final arbiter on all game mechanics is the GM.
Full-stop.
END
OF
LINE.

Spoiler:

Addendum to universal law of gaming: As long as the GM remains consistant and FAIR to all players.

From my experience, most GMs aren't like that - they at least try to play within the rules and would usually welcome a higher knowledge of the rules. If I tell them of a rule, the response is generally positive, thanking me for the enlightenment. I have never had a GM bury their head in the sand and start kicking and screaming because they don't wish to know the rules of the system they have chosen to play.

BTW, I altered your quote slightly but I did not do so to cause offense so please do not take it that way. I just didn't want my post to end up getting moderated for quoting you referring to others in such a derogatory manner.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

From my experience, most GMs aren't like that - they at least try to play within the rules and would usually welcome a higher knowledge of the rules. If I tell them of a rule, the response is generally positive, thanking me for the enlightenment..

.

most rule lawyers said that. The truth is far from it.

[eliakon]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

[Dog_O_War]

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

Um, no. Not even close.

If you've ever made your own character, you've used a mutually agreed upon ruleset.
If you've ever made the decision to cast one spell over another, you've used a mutually agreed upon ruleset.
etc.

When you play a game, you assume certain constants; when you play a Palladium game for example, you roll your IQ, ME, MA, PS, PP, PE, PB, and SPD with three six-sided dice to determine your starting statistics.

This is a game mechanic and a rule within the game; you do this as this is the foundation for a character.

Your GM may vary these rules, but then it's not his game in the most literal sense; he is just modifying them to suit his tastes.
The rules that you and he are using (in this case) are Palladium's; you're playing game X because that is what you've both agreed upon. When you choose game X, you choose that game for a number of reasons, but the thing of it is that games have rules. Everyone follows them, with a licence for creativity thrown in there for personal tastes.

But at the end of the day, there is a list of rules that you're following when you play a game.

That said, when people find themselves in a disagreement about rules, it's because one side does not actually know the rules and only thinks they do.

[flatline]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

I would argue that the GM is bound by the expectations that he has set for the players. If he has rules that differ from those expectations, he doesn't have to get the player's permission to use those rules, but he does have to inform them so that they can make intelligent decisions during character creation and play.

There's a social contract involved here and the players expect the GM to abide by it.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

There's a social contract involved here and the players expect the GM to abide by it.

--flatline

Thank you for talking sense rather than injecting opinion.

[eliakon]

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

Um, no. Not even close.

If you've ever made your own character, you've used a mutually agreed upon ruleset.
If you've ever made the decision to cast one spell over another, you've used a mutually agreed upon ruleset.
etc.

When you play a game, you assume certain constants; when you play a Palladium game for example, you roll your IQ, ME, MA, PS, PP, PE, PB, and SPD with three six-sided dice to determine your starting statistics.

This is a game mechanic and a rule within the game; you do this as this is the foundation for a character.

Your GM may vary these rules, but then it's not his game in the most literal sense; he is just modifying them to suit his tastes.
The rules that you and he are using (in this case) are Palladium's; you're playing game X because that is what you've both agreed upon. When you choose game X, you choose that game for a number of reasons, but the thing of it is that games have rules. Everyone follows them, with a licence for creativity thrown in there for personal tastes.

But at the end of the day, there is a list of rules that you're following when you play a game.

That said, when people find themselves in a disagreement about rules, it's because one side does not actually know the rules and only thinks they do.

That is exactly the argument that put forward by a rules lawyer that is disliked by most people. 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. If I choose to drop Alignments from my game, I am STILL playing Rifts, I just don't use a rule I find silly. 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')

[Vrykolas2k]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

GMs who think this way tend not to have groups for very long...

[eliakon]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

GMs who think this way tend not to have groups for very long...

Only if your not being upfront, if your players KNOW that some things might be different (inescapable in any sort of system that is dynamic, you know where new stuff will come out) then any mature player should not have an issue with a game not being 100% by the Letter Of Every Written Rule As Updated By Any Releases That Come About Regardless <TM>

Or put another way, why should a GM change THEIR game, just because a new book has come out saying that 'this is the way it is, but we never said that before'? Lemuria was a nice book....but my campaign worlds that I had made before, did not have to suddenly retroactively change the Lemurias that I had, just because some book said 'this is the way it is.'

[Nightmask]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

GMs who think this way tend not to have groups for very long...

Only if your not being upfront, if your players KNOW that some things might be different (inescapable in any sort of system that is dynamic, you know where new stuff will come out) then any mature player should not have an issue with a game not being 100% by the Letter Of Every Written Rule As Updated By Any Releases That Come About Regardless <TM>

Or put another way, why should a GM change THEIR game, just because a new book has come out saying that 'this is the way it is, but we never said that before'? Lemuria was a nice book....but my campaign worlds that I had made before, did not have to suddenly retroactively change the Lemurias that I had, just because some book said 'this is the way it is.'

Or changes something essential that the players have depended on (like the revisions to Vampire Kingdoms to nerf or eliminate what weaknesses they had) so when they next use them they hear 'oh that doesn't work' and are left scrambling trying to adapt and very peeved at having such things sprung on them (and likely feeling it wrong to toss in such changes simply because a new book came out).

[flatline]

Only if your not being upfront, if your players KNOW that some things might be different (inescapable in any sort of system that is dynamic, you know where new stuff will come out) then any mature player should not have an issue with a game not being 100% by the Letter Of Every Written Rule As Updated By Any Releases That Come About Regardless <TM>

Or put another way, why should a GM change THEIR game, just because a new book has come out saying that 'this is the way it is, but we never said that before'? Lemuria was a nice book....but my campaign worlds that I had made before, did not have to suddenly retroactively change the Lemurias that I had, just because some book said 'this is the way it is.'

I'll agree with this. As long as the GM has set the player's expectations appropriately, he can run the game using whatever rules he wants to.

--flatline

[Noon]

People will say alot of things, but their underlying fear is essentially that the rules lawyer generally takes no responsibility for the rules he tries to push for (ie, they generally don't think "Hmm, if I push this rule, it might spoil things - better not - atleast for now". Those that do do so generally make good GM's) - so the rules lawyer holds no responsibility for if the game is reduced to suck, yet they don't try to avoid pushing rules that will reduce the game to suck.

That's assuming there are rules that will reduce the game to suck. Typically in traditional RPG's, yes. But where there aren't, the whole rules lawyer phobia is pure superstition.

[Noon]

crazy embittered rule lawyers are angry little trolls who stick by canon

No we're not. Bitterness sometimes leads to anger, sure, and little folk may be prone to bitterness due to discrimination against them, but how exactly is sticking to canon trolling? Trolling requires misrepresentation, so being honestly dedicated to canon is the opposite of that.

Until you run into the 'Stop Having Fun!' guys who're absolutely certain that there is only one way to play, their way and will put all their effort into pointing out all the ways how your way is 'wrong' and theirs 'right' especially in a forum lest someone be exposed to the 'corrupting' influence and consider ways of playing other than theirs as also acceptable.

The inherent absurdity of singling out only one person for thinking that their way is right and that another's is wrong, is that for such a conflict to exist, there must be another party who is also being stubborn and thinking THEIR way is the right one, yet is being overlooked and not sharing in being targetted for it.

I fail to see why it's okay to accuse player A of being a fun-stopper for wanting to use Rule A over Rule B but not player B who is oppositely wanting to use Rule B over Rule A.

Because its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

GMs who think this way tend not to have groups for very long...

Only if your not being upfront, if your players KNOW that some things might be different (inescapable in any sort of system that is dynamic, you know where new stuff will come out) then any mature player should not have an issue with a game not being 100% by the Letter Of Every Written Rule As Updated By Any Releases That Come About Regardless <TM>

If it turns the game, relative to their subjective preferences, into sucksville, why would they be okay with it? They are so mature that when something sucks, they just keep on truckin' with the suck?

Do you mean the old classic of if they don't like it they can leave? Really the comment still stands in regards to those GM's - they tend not to have groups for very long.

[Dog_O_War]

That is exactly the argument that put forward by a rules lawyer that is disliked by most people. 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. If I choose to drop Alignments from my game, I am STILL playing Rifts, I just don't use a rule I find silly. 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')

You're not getting the point.

The players and the GM agree on using a set of rules, either unaltered or house, and that this agreement should be honored by both sides.

That's a pretty basic concept.

[Damian Magecraft]

See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.

When I find that a rules lawyer is "contradicting" a ruling given out by the GM, it is actually the GM contradicting themselves and said rules lawyer calling them on it.

For example;
(start of game)
R.L.: "so we're playing by the book's rules, and those house-rules you have, right?"
GM: "yeah, that's the way I do it. It's totally fair for everyone"

(later in the game)
GM: "okay <action> happens; you all <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "why? the rules say that when 'Y' happens, we avoid 'X', like in this situation."
GM: "No. You all still <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "but that's not in the rules you said we were using. If I had known, I wouldn't have done 'Z'."
etc.

And that's how it plays out like 90% of the time.

Generally, this takes up time, and only one player has the will to take a stand, while other sheepish players will instead say nothing, or suck-up to the GM by "being on the GM's side". Again, other players will complain that such actions 'delay the game', but role-playing isn't golf - there is no 'rate of play' clause here.

There are a couple of things a player can do if their GM insists on being God (and not just playing them) for the game; Not play. But this option sucks.

Complain ineffectually to the others after the fact, creating a subversive atmosphere and ultimately doom the game. Which also sucks.

Or you can attempt the risky, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" technique. When the above situation happens (and not before), just add 150% of everything to your character, and when you get questioned on it, you say, "well if you're playing like the rules are a suggestion, then I have done nothing wrong here and my character is legitimate. If the rules aren't a suggestion, then I would more than happily go back to my original stats, so long as you go forth being fair and upholding your end of the agreement, which was that we were using said rules, modified by the rules you've given us copies for".

There is a lot to consider for both players and GMs when you play a game; namingly, that it is a game, first and foremost, and that games have rules.

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.
They knew X would happen but they didnt plan on failing.
And they certainly didnt plan on the GM having a set of consequences in case X failed.
Thats when they start the arguments. (god forbid failure complicate things).

At the start of every game I post up my 5 Rules to a good game.
These rules supersede the books at all times.
5 Simple Rules for Good Game Mastering

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)

#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc... (Remember consequences do not have to be bad things good things can come about as well).

#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? This is not a video game; The villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.

#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?

Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart) starts up I point to rule 4 and start the timer.
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.

[flatline]

See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.

When I find that a rules lawyer is "contradicting" a ruling given out by the GM, it is actually the GM contradicting themselves and said rules lawyer calling them on it.

For example;
(start of game)
R.L.: "so we're playing by the book's rules, and those house-rules you have, right?"
GM: "yeah, that's the way I do it. It's totally fair for everyone"

(later in the game)
GM: "okay <action> happens; you all <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "why? the rules say that when 'Y' happens, we avoid 'X', like in this situation."
GM: "No. You all still <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "but that's not in the rules you said we were using. If I had known, I wouldn't have done 'Z'."
etc.

And that's how it plays out like 90% of the time.

Generally, this takes up time, and only one player has the will to take a stand, while other sheepish players will instead say nothing, or suck-up to the GM by "being on the GM's side". Again, other players will complain that such actions 'delay the game', but role-playing isn't golf - there is no 'rate of play' clause here.

There are a couple of things a player can do if their GM insists on being God (and not just playing them) for the game; Not play. But this option sucks.

Complain ineffectually to the others after the fact, creating a subversive atmosphere and ultimately doom the game. Which also sucks.

Or you can attempt the risky, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" technique. When the above situation happens (and not before), just add 150% of everything to your character, and when you get questioned on it, you say, "well if you're playing like the rules are a suggestion, then I have done nothing wrong here and my character is legitimate. If the rules aren't a suggestion, then I would more than happily go back to my original stats, so long as you go forth being fair and upholding your end of the agreement, which was that we were using said rules, modified by the rules you've given us copies for".

There is a lot to consider for both players and GMs when you play a game; namingly, that it is a game, first and foremost, and that games have rules.

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.
They knew X would happen but they didnt plan on failing.
And they certainly didnt plan on the GM having a set of consequences in case X failed.
Thats when they start the arguments. (god forbid failure complicate things).

At the start of every game I post up my 5 Rules to a good game.
These rules supersede the books at all times.
5 Simple Rules for Good Game Mastering

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)

#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc... (Remember consequences do not have to be bad things good things can come about as well).

#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? This is not a video game; The villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.

#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?

Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart) starts up I point to rule 4 and start the timer.
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.

You should rename rule 4 to something like "GM is the final arbitrator" or something. The title you're using now makes it look like a much stronger statement than the description actually describes. Plus is makes the GM sound like he's on an ego trip which makes the gaming atmosphere less cooperative and more antagonistic.

I agree with what #4 is saying, I just don't like how it's presented.

--flatline