Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on December 08, 2004, 12:37:03 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=920
So, here it is as promised. any adaptations of these ideas to other systems? Additional ideas?
-
I really need a vorpal axe.
-
when did we discuss rules lawyering...? ???
-
in the link at the top of the thread, int he WoD thread. N8 and I were talking a bit about it.
-
ahhh,... I dont think Rules lawyering is a problem,... and if it is hit em with Hackmaster.
-
I don't think dismissing it is a good way to address the issue. It clearly is a problem for many gamemasters because it comes up so often. it's better to find good ways to address rules lawyering than it is to dismiss it.
-
Wow someone cant take a joke today.
I think the biggest thing someone can do to deal with rules lawyering is talk to the person and tell them why its a problem in the first place. Setting up groundrules before play is just as important as playing. It lets players and GM's know what the line is.
All the stuff you discuss in the article is fine, but it kind of ducks the problem too, at the expense of the GM's free time and sanity. GM's really dont get the love they deserve, especially since 90 percent of them would rather be playing than designing a game that the players are going to try to break....
-
well of course. But I've talked about that sort of thing before. The optimal solution isn't always a practical solution. Not much of that is very hard to apply beyond coming up with the ideas. ANd it all makes for better games as well. Who wants to fight the same boring orcs every session?
-
I think most people dont even bother to confront the person ever.
-
probably not, but I'm not going to be tedious by bringing it up in every single article i write, esp when the focus of the article is a list of ideas.
-
As a Paranoia GM, I have a very simple solution to Rules Lawyering:
"Citizen, Knowledge of the rules is treason. Please report to the nearest Confession Booth for Summary Execution."
-
he extends that philosophy to real life too folks...
Really you should dig up his back yard.... the bodies... the bodies man, sweat merciful heavens just look at the bodies!
-
Well, I haven't had too many problems with rules lawyering recently. Mostly because I make it clear to my players that I will be changing rules along the way and creating my own rules. This generally works to both their advantage and mine.
And those who continue to protest are cooked and made into pork rines to be served at the next gaming session.
-
But to some players, the fun in role-playing isn't about the story or the characters' personalities, but it is min-maxing stats, creating the most powerful character possible within the confines of the rule system, and exploiting loop-holes in the rules. I have played in campaigns and run a few, where some of my players are engineers and computer programmers, and the highest factor of enjoyment for them is the rigidly defined world bound by the ruleset. (Not all engineers are this way, of course, it just happens that all of my rules-lawyers have happened to be these sorts of people).
I sat in a game of Champions (not as the GM thank goodness) where two players had a 3 HOUR argument because one of them wanted to turn the other one pink. One guy thought this was a very minor power, while they other argued this was a major transformation, and depending on the ruling it could unravel how either player had constructed his character.
I bring this up merely to say that simply writing off the concern, or just "laying down the law" as the GM, isn't going to solve this in every case. In the above example, this little prank had campaign-shattering consequences. And both players could back up their claims with how they defined the rules. You have to make a ruling as a GM, but if you do too many knee-jerk decisions, it will come back to haunt you.
But I think one thing is clear from reading the initial review that started this thread, and that is: rules lawyers can cause problems for the lazy GM. If the players know that every orc in the group they're facing is exactly the same, they are just a disposable encounter, then they can plan accordingly and use the rules to their advantage. Then they are using the rules to govern the encounter, rather than roleplay what their character would do. However, if you do as SaintNicholas suggests, mix up the encounters a bit, have an Orc Shaman and his devoted servant who is a rogue thrown in with the group, it becomes anything but a normal encounter. Take time as a GM to think, "Why are these orcs here? What precautions have they taken to protect themselves from adventurers wandering around the corner ready to kick-butt-and-take-names?"
If you know you have a rules-lawyer in your group, if you're serious about keeping the game fun for everyone (yourself included), spend some extra time polishing up your encounters. And keep notes on the rules that get sprung on you (that way you can try and use them later on to the NPCs' advantage, not as revenge, but to keep the game balanced).
By the way, nice column.
-
thanks, N8.
I know I sounded a little snooty about the point of roleplaying, but you're right: the truth is, people play for different reasons. If you want to play with people who love the rule system and exploiting it, then to make it fun for them, you have to workwith that. Yeah, it means more work, but it can be rewarding.
-
the gaming equivalent to Cartman from South Park you mean... I dont like to play with that kind of guy, and wont gm for them friends or no friends, we'll play xbox or settlers if they get that way. A whole group full of them might be ok (Safety in numbers), but Ive noticed that Rules Lawyers usually dont understand that they're ruining everyone else's fun. Ive found in just about every game asking the person to consider everyones feelings, and to understand that its a game, helps immensely.
-
*shrug* that's not the option for everyone, though.
I don't know about Cartman from Southpark, I think I've seen bits and pieces, maybe one complete episode., sow hile I know who Carman is, that comparison means little.
But now that you mention it, what rules lawyers often need is a good game of the Totally Insane Card Game.
Or perhaps a round of Magic. MtG thrives off that stuff.
-
or a rolled up newspaper... bad ruleslawyer... bad bad!!!
-
I don't play with Cartmans, just a lot of Kennys.
-
Come on, I've only died twice over four campaigns.
Also, if you are ever serious about making a new charatcer to replace Mercio, I thought of a really cool magic item we could turn him into.
-
It's not just how many times you've *actually* died. We're also counting the frequency that you almost kick it, Eagle Prince. :)
Turning Mercio into a magic item? I run that campaign, and I don't know anything about this. Disturbing....
-
Okay, imagine a shrunken head with permanent speak with dead. ;D And of course you've never heard about it, I only thought it up like monday night.
-
So you're just waiting for Mercio to finish Loremaster before you make him into an undead oracle. Not a bad idea, though considering the target you'll likely end up with an illusion of an undead oracle instead.
We're getting pretty off-topic though.
-
The anti-lawyer gm in me wants to make sure that corpse rots.
-
We have ways to prevent that.
I'm not sure about liking bad rules, that just ruins the game. I like fighters, but I could do without some of the 3.0 dnd rules that were in their favor. It doesn't take long to get sick of a two-fisted vorpal weaponmaster literally great cleave his way through armies of titans.
-
then control the magic he gets. The thing is, I *like* fighters in 3rd ed. Seriously, in 1st or 2nd, why the heck would you make a fighter? The ONLY reason is because your gm had a strict rolling mechanism and you couldn't get stats for anything else. Paladins and Rangers (and later Cavaliers) had all the same abilities plus some. the experience they needed wasn't that much more either.
-
Sorry, it would be more like magic items, feats, spells, and PrCs... or you could just use the 3.5 rules and not screw over everyone who wants to play a fighter.
-
As some of you know I do a lot of GMing in our group, but I have also been called a rules lawyer from time to time as I have a unique ability to recall many of the games rules verbatim without having to look them up. Over the years I have spent gaming I have found that as a GM this has been a great advantage as it allows for realtively quick decisions to keep the game flowing.
However, I must admit that I have encountered several individuals over the years in various groups that all they do is min-max, and the only enjoyment they get out of the game is creating the unbeatable character who can do everything better than everyone else. On "several" occassions, both as a GM and a Player, I have witnessed and participated in the debates that this thread addresses; as the rules lawyer, the GM, a player agreeing with a rules lawyer, and a player agreeing with the GM. Out of all of these encounters I have learned that listening to all of the interpretations of the rules and then coming up with a compromise is the best.
As a GM I have found that if there is a conflict between players that could totally alter the characters based upon a decision that I make, I try to find what I think is the correct interpretation of the rules, then, if need be to maintain game balance, offer some sort of limitation to bring the game back into balance, a humorous "pop-eye syndrome" or "random die" role etc.
In my opinion, however, the worst thing to do is to ignore the situation. That usually just leads to a pouty player and a lousy gaming session.
-
...I have a unique ability to recall many of the games rules verbatim without having to look them up
Only in his dreams. I will admit Nicadymus knows the rules fairly well, but we have many times caught him in the act of trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and back to the book we go. We all reread the rules, find that our interpretation of it was wrong, and adjust. To call Nicadymus a rules lawyer would be a fallacy even though he would enjoy it. Nicadymus enjoys the rules, but has been known to bend them when it suites the campaign for smooth game play or when he is trying to torment us. If ever a rule in question becomes a dispute, we go to the book hash it out as logically as we can, and then he will make the final ruling as a GM. End of story. Our group has seen a fair share of rule lawyers in the past, and they do decrease the “fun” of the game when they bicker with the GM, and so the rest of the group torments that player until he catches on that we are here for fun and not for the rules.
-
hear, hear... course it reminds me a little of A Few Good Men.
Saint
"Did you order the Code Red."
Morgan
" What do you want"
Saint
"I want the truth!!!"
Morgan
"You cant handle the truth!"
Saint
"Did you order the code red!!!"
Morgan
]"Yes I did, and I'd do it again!!"
-
That movie put me to sleep.
-
I believe that half our time is spent negotiating and hashing out rules during our gaming sessions. Of course it doesn't help either that our GM is studying to be a lawyer... ;D
-
That may be true MoreDew, but I think that bending the rules to "simulate realism in an imagined fantasy setting" can be enjoyable as well. Especially when bending the rules allows for what is represented in the cannon that has been published...such as the use of telekenetic powers for a jedi to slow his dissent after being blown off of a bidge when ambushed by 6 destroyer droids and 6 Ubese Headhunters, but not to the extent that they could tumble for one piece of falling, scorching hot rubble from the explosion to another across a 30 meter chasm without the expenditure of force points in a selfish manner. Not to reference an campaign I would be affiliated with or anything like that.
-
Whatever
-
I've been having nightmares about half black dragon war trolls with the diehard feat. Hordes of them, pouring out of the Shadowlands.
On an unrelated note, my feat selection will be Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Knockback, Rampaging Bull Rush. I'm not sure if I should go for Obtain Familiar or Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the goliath greathammer.
-
Interesting idea on the trolls.
-
Don't even think about it Nicadymus
-
Our Troll has the same thing, EUOL and Micah (our 2 rule lawyers) ruled that at -10 they drop for one round.
-
Your lucky Morgan. The world we are playing in right now doesn't have trolls native to its plane. However, I am not precluding the idea for a future campaign.
In addition, I had a dream last night about a group of goblin death knights in service to Vecna who rode undead dire worgs, and wielded keen, flaming lances, and shields.
-
Bad GM