Okay, so I've been accused of Rules Lawyering a great deal in my short gaming career, but you know, I've actually come to appreciate the moniker rather than be insulted by it. However, I have wondered at times whether I have done used my game knowledge with the best interests of the game or my own at heart. A situtation:
Several years ago, I was in a game and we were joined by a player who we quickly realized was a very, VERY poor addition to the group. After the initial honeymoon period ended, we discovered that she didn't know the rules, she REFUSED to learn them, and insisted on being given preferential treatment from the DM. Not to mention, she acted as if she was doing us a favor by participating in our game...! At any rate, while the DM was always more relaxed about the rules than I was and had long maintained a "story trumps rules" mindset, he never begrudged me for pointing out a monster's SR or another player's misinterpretation of the rules. Let me say this, 9 times out of 10, I used my knowledge to actually hinder myself and the rest of my party in the interest of fairness. I've used my knowledge to make awesome builds, but never at the expense of the fun of everybody else.
...But man, when it came to this girl, the gloves came off.
While I continued to remind everyone of the rules as normal, I made it my special mission to make sure that she did EVERYTHING by the book. I scuttled her strategies when they hinged on a colorful interpretation of a spell's description, constantly reminded her that she couldn't use certain skills untrained, and policed/scrutinized her more heavily than any other player or DM with whom I've ever played. We suspected that she may have been more rules savvy than we had initially believed and that she was rather "conveniently" forgetting the ranges of her weapons and durations of her spells, but that's still unknown.
Many years have passed since we eventually kicked her out, but I still wonder: Did I do the right thing?
Was it within my right to make sure that this player was adhering to the rules, even if I did so with more or less malicious intent?
Where do you draw the line for acceptable rules lawyering? My memory and my fingers are pretty quick so a correction never took more than 30 seconds ... but, ultimately, what's the etiquette when it comes to telling someone else that they're mistaken and that your knowledge of the rules is more complete and correct than there's?
I hope I don't sound arrogant, since I'm well aware that I hardly know every rule, but in my group, I'm always the most well-read gamer at the table.
At any rate, personal experiences with rules lawyers or opinions on the subject are all welcome!
Thanks!
sounds to me like you did a good thing the best way you could without being a complete and total son of a gun.
Being a rules lawyer to ME means being helpful to the DM. We spend a few minutes every game looking up a rule or three becaus we simply arn't sure if this or that can be done and if there are any rules to cover it.
Plus I'm not the only rules lawyer at my table so it's no big deal, My DM is very quick to say "get outta here trying to pull that S%^*" or another player will say "I'm not sure that spell works like that" so we look stuff up.
Back to your story it sounds like your DM was very well aware of what you were doing and let you deal with the mistake that was that other player as best as possible rather than him stepping up to the plate and saying "please don't come back"
I understand because I did the same thing. I met a nice guy online and he fit well into our group but then his clingy girlfreind demanded to join in.
She really didn't want to play, always kept saying "are we ready to leave yet" refused to build her own charecter and then complained when the charecter presented to her wasn't as bad ass as the rest of ours because of the story fluff she wanted to add to her charecter. That was the person I was a rules hawk on.
As the resident rules lawyer of my table, "the line" for me is that I only start quoting rules when someone asks about it, if something is blatantly happening wrong, or if there is a written rule concerning something someone is attempting("Man, I wanna try and jump on that moving cart, how would I do that?" Jump Check!).
The best way to keep rules-lawyering in check is to know that nobody knows 100% of the rules 100% of the time; not even you. If I'm wrong or unsure, I openly admit it. I refuse to argue over a rule; if there's a disagreement, then I'll look the rule up, and ask the DM for their call on it. If someone continues to push an argument past that point, then it wasn't about the game to begin with; take it ouside and talk it out.
Also, I try(and fail sometimes) to not be pushy about the rules. Typically, I'll wait until someone seems unsure about something or outright asks me about it. Mistakes happen, we ALL make them. I'd wager that 99% of the time, rules mistakes are unintentional, so never, ever be accusatory with pointing out a ruling. It's easy to get caught up in the moment and become adversarial, especially if a ruling would put your character in jeopardy. We're all here to have fun. Do not forget that.
I've found that this helps keep things honest and fair, and it doesn't make you out to be a "know it all" or look like you're attempting to subvert the game. Clarify a rule for the sake of the game, never for your own ego. Admitting fault and mistakes helps keep honest players honest, from my experience.
My lines for rules-lawyering:
1) If the GM asks for my opinion, I give it and back it up.
2) If the party comes up with a plan, I give my interpretation of the rules to support or refute the plan.
I try not to openly lawyer, as I'm interested in playing the game, not discussing game rules.
Oh, and 3) After the game, I may look up a rule to see if the on-the-spot ruling was correct and share that knowledge afterward.
Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to use rules lawyering as a method to attack someone else, regardless of the situation. I think that attacking someone in such a passive aggressive manner will not only detract from that person's enjoyment of the game, but also from everyone else's. I also think that it's likely to result in reactions from the player that run counter to the ones you would prefer.
I know that it can get frustrating when you have players at the table who don't know the rules as well as you do, and who don't seem to be making any effort to learn them. However, I think the best tactic you can take is to have patience, to correct them without getting frustrated, and to realize that they're going to learn the rules over time simply by playing the game. After all, that's how you learned the rules.
I started my gaming career as a rules lawyer (actually, I lie. I started my gaming career as a GM, since I was the only one who was willing to learn the rules; when I became a player, I was the rules lawyer). I think rules lawyers can be a great addition to a game table. The rules, I've always said, are there to protect players from the tyranny of the Games Master. The player's only weapon in their arsenal against the GM - short of the nuclear option of taking your ball and going home - is to use the Rules As Written.
This is a good thing, but that's a post for a different time.
What you did, though, wasn't rules lawyering. It was persistent badgering of another player. She may have deserved it... I don't know, it's not really my place to judge. But the fact is, it probably wasn't yours either. What you did was immature, and spiteful, and incredibly passive aggressive.
In short - you, sir, became the tyrant. A petty tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless.
What you should have done is have an open and frank confrontation with the problem player - with the whole table if the player was ruining everyone's fun as opposed to just your own. It would have saved everyone at the table heartache - and you a lot of trouble, in that you wouldn't have had to play her character as well as yours.
Okay, so I've been accused of Rules Lawyering a great deal in my short gaming career, but you know, I've actually come to appreciate the moniker rather than be insulted by it. However, I have wondered at times whether I have done used my game knowledge with the best interests of the game or my own at heart. A situtation:
Several years ago, I was in a game and we were joined by a player who we quickly realized was a very, VERY poor addition to the group. After the initial honeymoon period ended, we discovered that she didn't know the rules, she REFUSED to learn them, and insisted on being given preferential treatment from the DM. Not to mention, she acted as if she was doing us a favor by participating in our game...! At any rate, while the DM was always more relaxed about the rules than I was and had long maintained a "story trumps rules" mindset, he never begrudged me for pointing out a monster's SR or another player's misinterpretation of the rules. Let me say this, 9 times out of 10, I used my knowledge to actually hinder myself and the rest of my party in the interest of fairness. I've used my knowledge to make awesome builds, but never at the expense of the fun of everybody else.
...But man, when it came to this girl, the gloves came off.
While I continued to remind everyone of the rules as normal, I made it my special mission to make sure that she did EVERYTHING by the book. I scuttled her strategies when they hinged on a colorful interpretation of a spell's description, constantly reminded her that she couldn't use certain skills untrained, and policed/scrutinized her more heavily than any other player or DM with whom I've ever played. We suspected that she may have been more rules savvy than we had initially believed and that she was rather "conveniently" forgetting the ranges of her weapons and durations of her spells, but that's still unknown.
Many years have passed since we eventually kicked her out, but I still wonder: Did I do the right thing?
Was it within my right to make sure...
I think you should not have given her any special attention, but everything else seems fair.
|
What you should have done is have an open and frank confrontation with the problem player - with the whole table if the player was ruining everyone's fun as opposed to just your own. It would have saved everyone at the table heartache - and you a lot of trouble, in that you wouldn't have had to play her character as well as yours.
+1 on the open talk w/problem player, but I think what deserves mentioning is that not every group has the maturity to have a frank conversation. Confronting people is hard and most times people rather just let things slide. I believe the OP has good intent (the integrity of the rules), but perhaps could have explored other options.
In short - you, sir, became the tyrant. A petty tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless.
What you should have done is have an open and frank confrontation with the problem player - with the whole table if the player was ruining everyone's fun as opposed to just your own. It would have saved everyone at the table heartache - and you a lot of trouble, in that you wouldn't have had to play her character as well as yours.
+2
You had a problem player at the table. Problem players *always* demand direct, simple communication. "You are doing *this* and making the game un-enjoyable for the rest of us." Picking on her; making her, and only her, 'play by the rules' is not appropriate. It would be better to drop the passive aggressive crap and deal with the issue. One of two things will happen: 1) The Problem Plater will shape up, or 2) The Problem Player will leave. In either case, you (individually, or as a group) are not the bad guy.
If you know the rules well (and I am sure you do) I think the best role for you as a player is to backstop the GM. When the GM says, "I am not sure" you can give some advice, or offer to look it up while the game moves on. Having a good rules lawyer often helps a group-it's like a sounding board for the GM so they can focus on *playing* while the RL does the research.
GNOME