Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[Giant2005]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

[Akashic Soldier]

No because that is the GM's job.

And more often than not Rules Lawyers are more about what you can't do than what you can. They generally roll their eyes during cinematic scenes, complain about how it's impossible character A defeated character B, or remind players they can't do things like roll forward and uppercut the enemy without rolling their acrobatics successfully (or reminding them they flatly can't without it).

Basicly, it's annoying. Follow the rules, teach your fellow players, but don't dictate the rules at the game table--it's disruptive.

[flatline]

Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

[Giant2005]

I have been in a game where someone translated the Invulnerability tattoo into the Immortality tattoo. When it was in use, they were impervious to all physical harm. The GM did not realize the mistake. Are you saying that such a misue of the rules should go uncontested? How is that fair to the players that made their characters assuming the RAW and didn't make use of an immortality power?
If the rules aren't enforced (even if they are established as house rules) those that obey the rules are forever handicapped when compared to those who ignore them. How can a game be balanced when people are playing by different rules?
You might suggest adapting to the misinterpretations and using them just the same but more often than not, it is too late for that. Most of a character's abilities are granted at creation. If it comes to light that due to ignorance of the rules certain abilities are more powerful than they should be, a player that had no knowledge of that at creation is more than likely forever unable to make that same exploit.
Enforcing established rules promotes order. The chaos resulting from players being able to do as they please regardless of the rules is surely far more disruptive than sharing your knowledge with your fellow players.

[Giant2005]

Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Just to clarify, I am referring to what you call the "Good Rules Layer" not the bad one. The GM's word is final but that doesn't mean they should remain ignorant of any misinterpretations in my opinion.
It just seems that most people don't seem to differentiate between good and bad rules lawyers.

[Incriptus]

The 'bad' rules lawyers are those people who only accept the letter of the law, rather than the spirt of the law.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

[jaymz]

I have been in a game where someone translated the Invulnerability tattoo into the Immortality tattoo. When it was in use, they were impervious to all physical harm. The GM did not realize the mistake. Are you saying that such a misue of the rules should go uncontested? How is that fair to the players that made their characters assuming the RAW and didn't make use of an immortality power?
If the rules aren't enforced (even if they are established as house rules) those that obey the rules are forever handicapped when compared to those who ignore them. How can a game be balanced when people are playing by different rules?
You might suggest adapting to the misinterpretations and using them just the same but more often than not, it is too late for that. Most of a character's abilities are granted at creation. If it comes to light that due to ignorance of the rules certain abilities are more powerful than they should be, a player that had no knowledge of that at creation is more than likely forever unable to make that same exploit.
Enforcing established rules promotes order. The chaos resulting from players being able to do as they please regardless of the rules is surely far more disruptive than sharing your knowledge with your fellow players.

What you are talking about here is not what most consider a rules lawyer as doing. You are pointing out an out and out mistake or cheat. That is fine.

However the rules lawyers that are not welcomed are the one that do the following:

GM - I don't allow PP bonuses to add to auto-dodge, auto-dodge is it's own reward
Rules Lawyer - but the books says you add PP bonuses
GM - I know but I don't allow it
Rules Lawyer - but the books says you're supposed to
GM - I know but I don't agree with the books so I changed it
Rules Lawyer - but the rules are the rules, you have to follow the rules

so on and so forth.

[Damian Magecraft]

Nothing wrong with a rules lawyer... As long as he acknowledges that the gm is the final word on how things work at his table.

Where rule lawyers are most handy is in the development of house rules. They can help one to explore the cascade effect that can occur from changing how a rule functions.

[The Galactus Kid]

Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

TRUTH

[DhAkael]

No because that is the GM's job.

And more often than not Rules Lawyers are more about what you can't do than what you can. They generally roll their eyes during cinematic scenes, complain about how it's impossible character A defeated character B, or remind players they can't do things like roll forward and uppercut the enemy without rolling their acrobatics successfully (or reminding them they flatly can't without it).

Basicly, it's annoying. Follow the rules, teach your fellow players, but don't dictate the rules at the game table--it's disruptive.

Seconded.
I once had a rules lawyer who argued a game mechanic both pro AND con in the same scene. Pro so he could get off looking AWESOME (tm), and con, so the rest of the PC's would get buggered over.

So no, rules lawyers are a hated and reviled subspecies of troll that are to be hunted from under rocks when found, and subjected to intesnse sunlight until they turn to stone.

The Docotor (as played by Matt Smith) is sitting on the Iron-Throne; all arguments have been invalidated for the durration.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

Because some people define "Rules Lawyers" as people who twist the rules to their own advantage, and/or otherwise manipulate things strictly to help themselves.
Which, to me, seems to be missing the point about as much as defining "Lawyer" a similar way, instead of acknowledging that it is understanding of the laws that is the important factor, not how the person in question uses that understanding.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

That depends on what the GM wants to do.
If a GM wants to insert house rules and/or modify existing rules in a consistent way, then I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
If, on the other hand, the GM continually changes and modifies the rules from one thing to another over the course of an adventure or campaign, then I disagree.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

It takes two or more people to argue for 5 minutes.
Unless you're dealing with situations where there are two or more rules lawyers arguing amongst themselves, then I'd say that they're not the only problem.

[Bill]

I don't mind a gentle reminder that I've forgotten a rule. When the gentle reminder becomes a persistent drone that sends a pain through my brain I tend to bust out the horned helmet and inform the offender that I am the final arbiter of the rules. And if they don't like the way I handle things, they're welcome to move on.

[jaymz]

I make it a point before every session (well when I am actually running games) to make a note of any rules questions/issues during the game and they will be addressed at the end of the session. That seemed to keep the rules lawyer I knew at bay since he knew i would not get into a debate during the session.

[Zamion138]

some one mentioned a 5 minute encounter...i found that funny in its self, combat is never that fast hehehe
that said rules are great and if its something that looks cool or makes the players happy, like garroting some ones held off silently while hanging upside down and such cool....but rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

[Damian Magecraft]

some one mentioned a 5 minute encounter...i found that funny in its self, combat is never that fast hehehe
that said rules are great and if its something that looks cool or makes the players happy, like garroting some ones held off silently while hanging upside down and such cool....but rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

Combat never as fast a 5 minutes?
Obviously you and I have had different experiences...
Only when players choose to argue with the gm or are unfamiliar with their options does combat drag on longer than it should.

[Zamion138]

with out arguing combat is never that fast in our groups. and no arguing i mean its just never that quick.
5 to 20 shots to kill most badies in heavy armor, rolling strike for attackers, dodge, damagde,....ect. inless its a way weaker target or they are in an open field and were in cover its never over that fast.

[Zamion138]

I dont know maybe its how we play but if their are 4 players and say 8 baddies thats an hour+ fight

[Damian Magecraft]

That's why I said we have had different experiences.
Perhaps if I had played in games like yours I would have had similar experiences.
That does not mean I am saying your experiences are wrong or even that your games were; just different.

[Zamion138]

I didnt think you were talking smack dont get me wrong but its just combat always seems the longest part of any adventure.

[Lenwen]

rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

This would be why in my best guess why people hate them, tho admittedly I myself do not mind them at all.

[Spinachcat]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.

Rules lawyers, munchkins and canon sticklers are not welcome at my table. As I mentioned in another thread, dealing with these immature brats was lame when I was a teenager and never given a moment's consideration today.

Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

The only cheats I've ever encountered are the rules lawyers.

The 'bad' rules lawyers are those people who only accept the letter of the law, rather than the spirt of the law.

If a rule somehow doesn't benefit the rules lawyer, that rule is conveniently forgotten or they argue about how it means something totally different because of the "spirit of the law"

Again, the best solution is: Boot them from the game!

They add nothing and often drive away good players with their incessant noise.

So no, rules lawyers are a hated and reviled subspecies of troll that are to be hunted from under rocks when found, and subjected to intense sunlight until they turn to stone.

So shall it be written!
So shall it be done!

[Athos]

Rules lawyers are fine as long as they let the GM do things the way the GM wants to.

Good Rules Lawyer:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
GRL: okay.

Bad Rules Lawyer:
BRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GM: we're going to do it this way instead
BRL: but that's not right! it should...

--flatline

Excellent !!!

Here is my take on the GM part
Good GM:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
GGM: that's an interesting take on it, what book and page did you get that from?
GRL: (sites source)
GGM: ok, cool, we can do that next time, but it would really hose up the encounter this time, so bear with me.
GRL: I am good with that

Bad GM:
GRL: according to the rules this should be handled like this...
BGM: I don't have time to read the books, so I just do it this way, it's easier for me and I am a lazy bastard, so deal with it
GRL: (sighes) So we aren't really playing Rifts, we are playing a bastardized version of the game? I guess I am ok with that, are there other rules you have changed?
BGM: I will let you know as we come to them, too many to quote now, and I am too lazy to learn the real rules, so I actually have no idea when I am breaking them.
GRL: I think I am going to find another game, sorry dude.
BGM: I hate rules lawyers !!!


Bad GM's to me, are worse than bad rules lawyers. Being willfully ignorant of the system you are trying to run is just pathetic in my book. It is one thing for a GM to know the rules and consciously decide to deviate from them, but to not know the rules and wallow in your own ignorance, even when someone tries to educate you is the epitomy of bad gaming.

If someone tells me a book and page number when I am running a game, I always will read it, and if it is in fact correct, will adopt it for the future. I don't promise to change in mid game though and I think most people, even "rules lawyers" understand that and are cool with it. The problem comes in when someone tries to completely rewrite the game because they are too ignorant or too stupid to read and understand the rules. Without some kind of common framework, there is no Rifts...

[Dog_O_War]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

No because that is the GM's job.

Um, no. That is akin to saying that it is the job of the Police alone to combat crime, which is also wrong.

It is everyone's job to combat cheats at the table; if you are not apart of the solution, then you may as well be cheating yourself.
To offer an example, if you see another player "roll" a successful action which, let's say saves your life - and you choose to remain silent, then you are [yourself] cheating.

but rarely do rule lawyers add to the game enviroment they usaly detract from it.

This statement seems to lack consideration.
First, it is a game; games have rules.
If you do not follow the rules for the game, are you still playing?

Consider football; say the ref allowed a player on the team opposing your favorite to get up after biffing it with the ball on a kick return, and he got an 80 yard touch-down because of it.

80 yard touch-down; EPIC.
Ignoring the rules of the game, giving 'coolness' priority over fairness; absolutely sh**ty.

Effectively, when a rule is argued over, it is being argued over because of fairness - someone took to heart that the spirit of fair-play would be taken into account within the game, and that was that rules were to be followed in order to not be disruptive. When that rule is over-ridden because it made for a 'cool action', then keep in-mind that at least one person at the table felt penalized because he thought said action couldn't be performed under the rules, and feels dumb because he didn't know.

*******

As to the rest of the thread, I find that the only ones who hate rules lawyers are people who fall into the following categories:

1. People who themselves do not know the rules, and cannot be bothered to learn them. (ignorance)
2. People who tried to learn the rules, but got discouraged because the game they want to play is infact complicated, so just stopped part-way through (half-assed)
3. People who want to be "epic" all the time without having to actually earn their "epicness". (indolent)
4. People who do not like to follow rules. (arses)

If you feel I've missed any, please feel free to add them.

[DhAkael]

BUWAHAHAHAHA..
Oh...
Seriously?
BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[jaymz]

1. People who themselves do not know the rules, and cannot be bothered to learn them. (ignorance)
2. People who tried to learn the rules, but got discouraged because the game they want to play is infact complicated, so just stopped part-way through (half-assed)
3. People who want to be "epic" all the time without having to actually earn their "epicness". (indolent)
4. People who do not like to follow rules. (arses)

If you feel I've missed any, please feel free to add them.

5 - people who by and large follow the rules but have some houserules that differ from the rules as written and don't want to repeatedly argue with the guy who wants to only play by the rules as written

[Zamion138]

Id say people that like rule lawyers are infact one of them and are the people want everyone the same cuase they don't have fun if they aren't some how the center of attention. Be it in postive or negative light. If the gm say say your hit....you reply damn im dead and they don't want the game to end like that so they add in something like ...well I suppose the attack actualy hit you in the arm and that just got lopped off and you drop to the ground.
they are oviusly not going by the rules, they are not cheating the other players. But when dice add or subtract its always possible to get lucky or unlucky as it may be and kinda ruin the rest of that players or the groups whole night if they don't break the rules. But I suppose that's ignorance and stupidity and sloth speaking.

[Killer Cyborg]

1. People who themselves do not know the rules, and cannot be bothered to learn them. (ignorance)
2. People who tried to learn the rules, but got discouraged because the game they want to play is infact complicated, so just stopped part-way through (half-assed)
3. People who want to be "epic" all the time without having to actually earn their "epicness". (indolent)
4. People who do not like to follow rules. (arses)

If you feel I've missed any, please feel free to add them.

5 - people who by and large follow the rules but have some houserules that differ from the rules as written and don't want to repeatedly argue with the guy who wants to only play by the rules as written

Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

[DhAkael]

Id say people that like rule lawyers are infact one of them and are the people want everyone the same cuase they don't have fun if they aren't some how the center of attention. Be it in postive or negative light. If the gm say say your hit....you reply damn im dead and they don't want the game to end like that so they add in something like ...well I suppose the attack actualy hit you in the arm and that just got lopped off and you drop to the ground.
they are oviusly not going by the rules, they are not cheating the other players. But when dice add or subtract its always possible to get lucky or unlucky as it may be and kinda ruin the rest of that players or the groups whole night if they don't break the rules. But I suppose that's ignorance and stupidity and sloth speaking.

SING IT BROTHER!
*Manly back-pats*

[Killer Cyborg]

Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

Agreed.
But as players, it's not their job to fix the silly and/or mistaken rules- that's up to the GM.
When GM's don't do it, that's not the lawyer's fault.
Just like it's the GM's fault when they implement a poorly-thought-out house rule, or when they insist on using a misinterpretation of the rules, and otherwise don't put much thought into what they're doing.

[jaymz]

I remember that strip....I nee to go back and read all my back issues of KotDT. I think I have about 80 straight issues to.....

[Nightmask]

Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

B.A. actually said 'sorry but no regular turnip can do, it has to be special turnips grown by this particular village' after Brian tried with the regular turnips. Still not the best solution (since he should have known his group would just conquer the village for the 'super turnips') but he didn't make it quite that easy.

[Killer Cyborg]

Most rules lawyers I've met will adapt to house rules without complaint, and use those rules instead.
IF they are presented.

A prime example would the the KotD strip where the GM had an orc hurl a turnip at a PC for 1d8 damage.
Brian, something of a rules lawyer, was the only player to NOT complain at the amount of damage.
Instead, he had his character start planting turnips, now that a precedent had been established that a hurled turnip inflicts more damage than a crossbow bolt.

In this case, the GM clearly made a mistake and should have simply admitted it. I believe Brian had whole silos full of turnips by the end of the game. That was just silly. And that is one reason why rules lawyers are generally disliked. They exploit rules even if they are silly and based on a mistake or miscalculation.

B.A. actually said 'sorry but no regular turnip can do, it has to be special turnips grown by this particular village' after Brian tried with the regular turnips. Still not the best solution (since he should have known his group would just conquer the village for the 'super turnips') but he didn't make it quite that easy.

"Orcish Mountain Turnips," or something like that.

Either way, Brian was happy to go along with the new rules.
Because that's what Rules Lawyers do.

[Akashic Soldier]

Subspecies of troll.

Dead on and now to capture the theme of this thread using the power of ska music and my sax.

Do you believe the things that you say?
You whine and you always contradict yourself and it'll come unstuck one day.
Why do you persist with the things that you do?
You spend most of your days trying to bring everyone else down,
but it'll all come back on you.

You say you know what you're doing -- but you really couldn't care.
But your bitter words aren't gonna get you anywhere.

What are you trying to rule?
What are you trying to say?
Welll, is there anything that you haven't destroyed?
Is there anything left in your way?
What are you trying to prove--and does it really matter anyway?
Spend most of your games bringing everyone down but you're a loser at the end of the day.

Years go by but still you haven't changed,
Will you make anything of your life or will you always be this way?
When you admit that you are wrong,
Well you think you can hide behind your stubbornness,
Well you know that can't last long.

Either you dont know what you're doing
or you really couldnt care
but your bitter words wont get you anywhere
What are you trying to rule?
What are you trying to say?
Welll, is there anything that you haven't destroyed?
Is there anything left in your way?
What are you trying to prove--and does it really matter anyway?
You spend most of your games trying 'to bring everyone down but you're a loser at the end of the day.

*mad Akashic Solo*

What are you trying to rule?
What are you trying to say?
Welll, is there anything that you haven't destroyed?
Anything left in your way?
What are you trying to rule?
You spend most of your games trying 'to bring everyone down but you're a loser at the end of the day.
What you trying to prove?
And does it really matter anyway?

[Zer0 Kay]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

That is fine the Rules Lawyers I don't like are the ones that derail the GM's authority or rather try to. "That couldn't happen because it clearly states here that this can only happen." "Hey that type of creature can't do that." The second one is especially irratating in game when your trying to use a robotic version of something that can do what it is doing but the natural creature can't and none of the group have ever ran into either before. So the Freaking rules lawyer is using player knowledge. So I guess that is the real reason, in an attempt to keep the GM adhering to the rules the rules lawyer will often apply player knowledge which will then alert the players and taint their knowledge.
Player 1: "Uh... is it a real one?"
GM: @RL "Damn it you idiot sit down and shut up." @ P1: "Yes as far as you know."
RL: "It couldn't be because a real one can only jump 20' and you just said it jumped 100'."
P1: "So it's not real, so it must be... a gay robot?"
GM: "Yes Caboose." @RL "LEAVE NOW"
RL: "What? I was just trying to help."
GM: [point]
RL: [look blankly]
GM: [point to door sternly glaring at RL]
RL: "What?"
GM: [Picks up handful of punishment dice (metal six siders)]
RL: "Uh... I got to get up early tomorrow so I'm gonna..."
GM: [pulls arm back]
RL: "Run, bye"
GM: [chucking dice] "You take six d six damage!!"
RL: [running for front door] "oww. oww. oww, my eye."
P1: "I think it was only three d six but one was a critical"
RL: "I'm suing."
GM: "Go figure. Hey come back when you can see straight."

[Giant2005]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

That is fine the Rules Lawyers I don't like are the ones that derail the GM's authority or rather try to. "That couldn't happen because it clearly states here that this can only happen." "Hey that type of creature can't do that." The second one is especially irratating in game when your trying to use a robotic version of something that can do what it is doing but the natural creature can't and none of the group have ever ran into either before. So the Freaking rules lawyer is using player knowledge. So I guess that is the real reason, in an attempt to keep the GM adhering to the rules the rules lawyer will often apply player knowledge which will then alert the players and taint their knowledge.
Player 1: "Uh... is it a real one?"
GM: @RL "Damn it you idiot sit down and shut up." @ P1: "Yes as far as you know."
RL: "It couldn't be because a real one can only jump 20' and you just said it jumped 100'."
P1: "So it's not real, so it must be... a gay robot?"
GM: "Yes Caboose." @RL "LEAVE NOW"
RL: "What? I was just trying to help."
GM: [point]
RL: [look blankly]
GM: [point to door sternly glaring at RL]
RL: "What?"
GM: [Picks up handful of punishment dice (metal six siders)]
RL: "Uh... I got to get up early tomorrow so I'm gonna..."
GM: [pulls arm back]
RL: "Run, bye"
GM: [chucking dice] "You take six d six damage!!"
RL: [running for front door] "oww. oww. oww, my eye."
P1: "I think it was only three d six but one was a critical"
RL: "I'm suing."
GM: "Go figure. Hey come back when you can see straight."

Wow.
I know all of the above was in jest but that GM sounds like a monster to me.
In game he is god. Out of game, not so much.
If his god complex exists out of game to the degree that he thinks violence is okay, I wouldn't play there even if it was someone else he was throwing dice at. He can GM his cats - something about that story suggests to me that GM has a whole lot of cats...

[Akashic Soldier]

If he thinks violence is okay, I wouldn't play

Wait, its not?

Ohtoh...

Seriously if one of my players was being an ass. I'd flatly say, man, stop it, not cool, then go on to explain why. If it continued, I'd ask them to leave (I've done this while I was a player too if I have group consensus), if they refuse, I will kick their ass. I mean I won't break anything but I'm not beyond dragging them through the street by the ear and making them prance and say "I'm a little princess" on pain of an asswhooping.

I love a good laugh as much as the next guy but I don't tolerate BS, fortunately its never gotten to this point (over a rule) in any of the games I've played in, but there is an unspoken code of conduct at the gaming table.

1, You're supposed to be there to have fun and support your fellow players.
2, No graphically described sex scenes please (unless they're relevant in some way I GUESS) but not to just be sleazy.
3, Don't whip it out at the gaming table (this has prompted an ass kicking from me after several warnings to stop while back in high school)
4, If you're going to bring your girlfriend to a game you are not allowed to leave mid-combat and have sex in my bathroom where we can all hear you.
5, Don't pick on other players
6, Don't disrupt the game (trolling at the game table irks me and is the #1 reason you walk away from the session without any funny stories)
7, Do not talk about messed up sexual fetishes, furries, how hot it would be to suck horse d!ck, etc. Seriously, this has come up in multiple different groups from time to time (normally as jokes) but not always and no one wants to hear it.

And more, use your common sense.

Guess my point is, avoid me man, avoid me. I'm not a player you want to game with if you enjoy ******* around with other players.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

It takes two or more people to argue for 5 minutes.
Unless you're dealing with situations where there are two or more rules lawyers arguing amongst themselves, then I'd say that they're not the only problem.

there were some other underlining issues between a couple of players, so i just sit back eat pizza and had a couple of beer and watch the show.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

they disrupt game play, nothing stops game play ,nothing like a rule lawyer arguing over something minor that turns a simple 5 minute minor encounter into a 2 hour debate.

It takes two or more people to argue for 5 minutes.
Unless you're dealing with situations where there are two or more rules lawyers arguing amongst themselves, then I'd say that they're not the only problem.

there were some other underlining issues between a couple of players, so i just sit back eat pizza and had a couple of beer and watch the show.

[Vrykolas2k]

Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

[Zer0 Kay]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

That is fine the Rules Lawyers I don't like are the ones that derail the GM's authority or rather try to. "That couldn't happen because it clearly states here that this can only happen." "Hey that type of creature can't do that." The second one is especially irratating in game when your trying to use a robotic version of something that can do what it is doing but the natural creature can't and none of the group have ever ran into either before. So the Freaking rules lawyer is using player knowledge. So I guess that is the real reason, in an attempt to keep the GM adhering to the rules the rules lawyer will often apply player knowledge which will then alert the players and taint their knowledge.
Player 1: "Uh... is it a real one?"
GM: @RL "Damn it you idiot sit down and shut up." @ P1: "Yes as far as you know."
RL: "It couldn't be because a real one can only jump 20' and you just said it jumped 100'."
P1: "So it's not real, so it must be... a gay robot?"
GM: "Yes Caboose." @RL "LEAVE NOW"
RL: "What? I was just trying to help."
GM: [point]
RL: [look blankly]
GM: [point to door sternly glaring at RL]
RL: "What?"
GM: [Picks up handful of punishment dice (metal six siders)]
RL: "Uh... I got to get up early tomorrow so I'm gonna..."
GM: [pulls arm back]
RL: "Run, bye"
GM: [chucking dice] "You take six d six damage!!"
RL: [running for front door] "oww. oww. oww, my eye."
P1: "I think it was only three d six but one was a critical"
RL: "I'm suing."
GM: "Go figure. Hey come back when you can see straight."

Wow.
I know all of the above was in jest but that GM sounds like a monster to me.
In game he is god. Out of game, not so much.
If his god complex exists out of game to the degree that he thinks violence is okay, I wouldn't play there even if it was someone else he was throwing dice at. He can GM his cats - something about that story suggests to me that GM has a whole lot of cats...

That's funny

[Zer0 Kay]

Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

A GM no matter how well he knows the rules is never a rules lawyer.

[Vrykolas2k]

Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

A GM no matter how well he knows the rules is never a rules lawyer.

Except for the fact that I now expect all GMs to do the same thing, due to aforementioned bad GM.

[Zer0 Kay]

Actually a lot of rules lawyers are created by bad GMs.
A bad GM certainly turned me into one, after I quit gaming for over a year.
So...
Every time I run a game, I read how the system actually works for a couple of weeks.
I write up any house-rules and make sure at least half my players get them.
And I clarify for my game what some half-written rule means, I write out on house-rules which interpretation or version of a rule is being used (such as SN strength creatures adding punch damage to melee weapon attacks), and if rules conflict which rule will be used.
Thus everyone is on the same sheet of music, they know what to expect from session to session, and I don't create more rules lawyers.

A GM no matter how well he knows the rules is never a rules lawyer.

Except for the fact that I now expect all GMs to do the same thing, due to aforementioned bad GM.

To know the rules? Or to not know the rules? I'm going to assume you mean you expect all GM's to know all the rules. But my point is if the GM is clueless then they're just a bad GM, if a GM shoots from the hip then they're just flexible... sometimes, if a GM is a real stickler for the rules that doesn't make them a rules lawyer, if a GM is a stickler for the rules reguardless of the players not enjoying the game... then we're back to bad GM.

[flatline]

To know the rules? Or to not know the rules? I'm going to assume you mean you expect all GM's to know all the rules. But my point is if the GM is clueless then they're just a bad GM, if a GM shoots from the hip then they're just flexible... sometimes, if a GM is a real stickler for the rules that doesn't make them a rules lawyer, if a GM is a stickler for the rules reguardless of the players not enjoying the game... then we're back to bad GM.

^^Truth this.

The corollary of that is that a good GM applies the rules or wings it according to the pace of the game play.

The best combat is story driven without dice.

Nothing has the potential to make the night go down hill like the words "okay, everybody roll initiative".

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

The best combat is story driven without dice.

Nothing has the potential to make the night go down hill like the words "okay, everybody roll initiative".

--flatline

I have to disagree there.

[Zer0 Kay]

To know the rules? Or to not know the rules? I'm going to assume you mean you expect all GM's to know all the rules. But my point is if the GM is clueless then they're just a bad GM, if a GM shoots from the hip then they're just flexible... sometimes, if a GM is a real stickler for the rules that doesn't make them a rules lawyer, if a GM is a stickler for the rules reguardless of the players not enjoying the game... then we're back to bad GM.

^^Truth this.

The corollary of that is that a good GM applies the rules or wings it according to the pace of the game play. Yeah

The best combat is story driven without dice. Mmm... depends

Nothing has the potential to make the night go down hill like the words "okay, everybody roll initiative". disagree

--flatline

[SpiritInterface]

That depends on what the GM wants to do.
If a GM wants to insert house rules and/or modify existing rules in a consistent way, then I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
If, on the other hand, the GM continually changes and modifies the rules from one thing to another over the course of an adventure or campaign, then I disagree.

I have played with a GM who was the latter. He changed the rules in the middle of the game. He would rule one way for one player and another way for another.

I played for with one GM once (and only once) who invited people to her games so she would have characters to screw over or kill in the party while rewarding her friends characters.

On a different occasion I had a GM who loved it when I pointed out a bit of rule that let me take down a character who was being a bully in the party.