| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you do about a rules lawyer who just wont quit. I cant afford to not have him in may game either or itll be down to two. Please help. He debates everything thinking his way really is the righteous way to do things.
Make him responsible for looking up all rules in game in the book.If your not sure of a rule, make him look it up IN THE BOOK for you while you continue the game. When he finds the appropriate rule in the book have him give you the page number so you can revue it.
If your using house rules, spell them out explicitly in a game rule packet, in print, that all you players have access to. Tell the group that these are the adjustments your making for YOUR game and why they adjustments are made.
If he is stopping play due to incessant rules corrections, speak with him privately after the game and ask why he feels the need to grind play to a halt for rule questions and how you can work together instead of against each other.
Ask him if he knows what Rule 0 is. If he doesn't, show it to him and then tell him all other rules follow that and if you have to make quick decisions in the middle of a game to make the story advance and he has an issue with the rule your making to note it on paper and talk to you AFTER the game about it. Not during.
In short, appeal to his maturity. If he has none, then your screwed in any case.
What do you do about a rules lawyer who just wont quit. I cant afford to not have him in may game either or itll be down to two. Please help. He debates everything thinking his way really is the righteous way to do things.
This might get a better response in the Advice forum.
My advice would be to make sure you're actually following the rules, and any rules you choose not to follow are made clear in advance.
Once that's done, sit down with the player and tell him that challenging the rules so frequently is causing you problems, and making the game less fun for you and the other players.
Generally, I consider the correct way to object to a ruling is to very briefly mention how you think the rule may be different, then immediately accept the GM ruling and (if the GM is open to it) bring it up after the game for clarification.
This might get a better response in the Advice forum.My advice would be to make sure you're actually following the rules, and any rules you choose not to follow are made clear in advance.
Once that's done, sit down with the player and tell him that challenging the rules so frequently is causing you problems, and making the game less fun for you and the other players.
Generally, I consider the correct way to object to a ruling is to very briefly mention how you think the rule may be different, then immediately accept the GM ruling and (if the GM is open to it) bring it up after the game for clarification.
+1
I feel that as a player I should abide by the GM's ruling but have knowledge of where the GM differs from the RAW so that I can make in game decisions without being hampered by an unknown GM ruling.
As a GM, I should strive to follow the RAW and when I house rule something be open, up front, and consistent.
I would pull the player aside and let him know that in game arguments distract the table from the adventure. Allow him to talk to you or contact you after the game with his differences. Be open to their opinion and the possibility that they are correct. At the end, be up front and tell them how you will rule that situation in the future. I have never had a problem with a rules lawyer as long as they know how you rule it and are consistent in that ruling.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules lawyering is always a means, never an end. No one does it just to be doing it. There's another motivation at hand.
Generally, I think "rules lawyering" happens for one of two reasons:
1) The player is trying to get away with something by bending the rules and finding *cough* "creative" ways of interpreting them. So the goal is basically to cheat (which itself is a means, usually with a goal of feeling powerful). Address that, not the rules lawyering. Perhaps give him other ways to feel cool and powerful, or just talk to him about the tone you want in the game.
2) The player feels cheated. Maybe he took a feat to be able to do something that you then let everyone else do for free. Or maybe he had a cool, nontraditional concept in mind and you're blocking him (possibly without knowing it). If this one's the case, then you need to either step up YOUR game to keep from shortchanging him, or else be very flexible in letting him get "refunds" on things you've invalidated or finding ways to accommodate his goals.
I feel for you, as I have one also!
Mine also looks up all the monsters after every session and comments on anything that didn't happen correctly even though I've stated, on many occasions, that I change the monster abilities so that "out of game" knowledge is kept to a minimum and the Knowledge skills actually mean something.
He just can't help himself - which eventually lessens his enjoyment.
What do you do about a rules lawyer who just wont quit. I cant afford to not have him in may game either or itll be down to two. Please help. He debates everything thinking his way really is the righteous way to do things.
Is he right? The easiest way to stop a rules lawyer is to know the rules better than him. However, be aware that being confrontation usually doesn't help the situation.
Regardless he needs to learn when and how to question your rulings. You need to know when it's important to listen. If the interpretation means life/death for a character then its reasonable to hash it out at the table, as trying to unwind a character death is a pain.
If it's a minor nitpick, he needs to learn to let it slide. There are times when he just needs to say "okay you're the DM let's keep the game moving."
I know I'm a bit of rules lawyer, and I think I know the rules pretty well. If I see an obvious misruling, I will usually say so, but I try to do it quickly and diplomatically. "I thought that it works this way." If the DM is unsure, they'll often say "could you look it up." Then I look for a quote in the book without holding up the game. If I can find a direct quote that is unambiguous, fine. If I can't find such a quote I close the book and let the ruling stand. If the DM reiterates their decision, I save discussion for after the game. If it's truly minor, I just overlook it, especially if it isn't likely to recur often.
You need to set up time to discuss the unresolved issues off-line. I often find that DMs or players use some house rules (or previous editions) and believe them to be canon without realizing it. If you can't find a unambiguous quote either way, take the time to search the FAQ or come here and ask for opinions.
The hardest part is often getting a rules lawyer (and some DMs) to understand that a rule can be interpreted in more than one way and as DM you do have the final say. This does not mean you should use rule 0 to ignore any points the rules lawyer may bring up, merely that when presented with an unclear rule you make the call. You should also be able to justify why you prefer one ruling over another.
I'll give you a third reason, Jiggy. I rules lawyer a bit and by that I mean I don't hesitate to call things into question when I think someone is playing wrong though I typically phrase it in a question like "is that how that's actually done?" I do it mostly for fairness of play. I think it's dumb to have secret house rules where "this is how we do it" breaks core concepts of the game. Pathfinder is meant to be a social game. Sure, each table has its own preferences but generally speaking anyone should be able to roll up a character using just the core books and be able to get into most games with minimal friction.
Note that I do play PFS so I do have a "fairness" complex. Also, working in software I come pre-loaded that the rules are the rules whether that's for my benefit or not. :D That said, I don't like the session time restriction on my PFS games as I enjoy time to play out stories and such instead of it just being a hack and slash fest.
That said, I don't like the session time restriction on my PFS games as I enjoy time to play out stories and such instead of it just being a hack and slash fest.
In PFS, home games and online games do not necessarily have to follow the 5 hour restriction, and some conventions may run longer slots.
At stores and whatnot, the time restriction is rather nice for scheduling and people knowing how long to plan to be there.
Gamer's Guide to Pathfinder did a podcast on Player Types and how to handle them. I'd recommend checking it out (episode 8, I think).
http://www.35privatesanctuary.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=cat egory&id=53&Itemid=65
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules lawyering is always a means, never an end. No one does it just to be doing it. There's another motivation at hand.
As someone who "rules-lawyers" all the time, I must object to this. My "motivation" is just to make sure the rules are followed correctly. I correct my team as much as the DM, and I make observations/corrections regardless of whether the outcome benefits me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Rules lawyering is always a means, never an end. No one does it just to be doing it. There's another motivation at hand.As someone who "rules-lawyers" all the time, I must object to this. My "motivation" is just to make sure the rules are followed correctly. I correct my team as much as the DM, and I make observations/corrections regardless of whether the outcome benefits me.
I would contend that you may well be doing this out of a sense of fairness, rather than simply wanting to rules-lawyer.
|
I agree, I do it often, (and usually appriciated for it) because I like to be on the same page as everyone else, and because it helps everyone learn and be better, including myself. I don't shy away from making suggestions that hurt myself or my team, and I understand that there are things I may not be aware of.
Rules Lawyers are not a bad thing in themselves. And DM's, especially ones that want to insist that they are always right, and everything should take backseat to their story or view on things can be worse.
I'd suggest first and foremost, simply talk to them one on one. Explain why your upset, and what exactly is the reason. The hear what they have to say about it. See what happens. If it continues, point it out in game a little, but don't just dime them out or be confrontational (blame game, you you you). Something like "maybe you are right, and after this is over, we can go check, but for now, this happened. There maybe be something that <character name> doesn't see just yet, and Roger's up next." Let them answer with their next arguement, and listen, because they might be right. Then go on with the game as needed.
Just make a house rule:
If you argue a rule and are either wrong or fail to accept Gm adjudication of the rule then you lose all XP for the encounter.
This should give most rule lawyers pause. They want that XP so they will be reluctant to argue anything further without solid proof first.
I would contend that you may well be doing this out of a sense of fairness, rather than simply wanting to rules-lawyer.Rules lawyering is always a means, never an end. No one does it just to be doing it. There's another motivation at hand.As someone who "rules-lawyers" all the time, I must object to this. My "motivation" is just to make sure the rules are followed correctly. I correct my team as much as the DM, and I make observations/corrections regardless of whether the outcome benefits me.
That's exactly my point though. Rules-lawyering is merely attempting to be the arbiter of the rules when you're not the DM. You're putting this necessary motivation behind it, which I've found often isn't there. DMs do, often, take offense at being told they're doing it wrong and want to see some sort of malevolent intent in the player telling them so.
The important thing is that the rules are observed, understood, and applied equally to everyone and in all circumstances.
Just make a house rule:
If you argue a rule and are either wrong or fail to accept Gm adjudication of the rule then you lose all XP for the encounter.
This should give most rule lawyers pause. They want that XP so they will be reluctant to argue anything further without solid proof first.
Fine, but only if I get double XP if the DM is wrong. :-P
I personally think this is a bad way to handle it, trying to fix out-of-game behavior with in-game punishments usually don't work and merely pisses off the innocent bystanders.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's exactly my point though. Rules-lawyering is merely attempting to be the arbiter of the rules when you're not the DM. You're putting this necessary motivation behind it, which I've found often isn't there. DMs do, often, take offense at being told they're doing it wrong and want to see some sort of malevolent intent in the player telling them so.
The important thing is that the rules are observed, understood, and applied equally to everyone and in all circumstances.
To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the motive is always (or even often) malevolent. But everything people do has a motivation (whether the person in question is aware of it or not), and that motivation is very rarely the action itself.
To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the motive is always (or even often) malevolent. But everything people do has a motivation (whether the person in question is aware of it or not), and that motivation is very rarely the action itself.
I get that, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about a player trying to enforce the rules for the sake of making sure the rules are abided.You said NO ONE rules-lawyers just to do it. What I'm saying is that, as "rules-lawyer"ing is merely trying to ensure the rules are followed, it is often done for the sake of being done. I make sure the rules are followed SO THAT the rules get followed.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I get that, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about a player trying to enforce the rules for the sake of making sure the rules are abided.You said NO ONE rules-lawyers just to do it. What I'm saying is that, as "rules-lawyer"ing is merely trying to ensure the rules are followed, it is often done for the sake of being done. I make sure the rules are followed SO THAT the rules get followed.
Ah, I was thinking of "rules-lawyering" as just referring to the act of interrupting the game and pointing out a rule - a bit more narrowly than you were defining it. Your definition sort of halfway includes the motivation I was talking about.
Just make a house rule:
If you argue a rule and are either wrong or fail to accept Gm adjudication of the rule then you lose all XP for the encounter.
This should give most rule lawyers pause. They want that XP so they will be reluctant to argue anything further without solid proof first.
Fine, but only if I get double XP if the DM is wrong. :-P
I personally think this is a bad way to handle it, trying to fix out-of-game behavior with in-game punishments usually don't work and merely pisses off the innocent bystanders.
How does it piss off bystanders?
There are two types of rules lawyers: Ones that know the rules very well and ones the only think they do. This rule makes it very clear very quickly which are which and keeps the bad ones quiet while allowing the good ones to correct us when we goof up a rule.
How does it piss off bystanders?
In this case you have a problem with one rule lawyer type. You make your decree. I see something questionable, even though I have never in the last twenty some-adventures, questioned a ruling you made, I now either have to keep my pie hole shut or risk losing XP. I perceive that to being punished for something I didn't do. I'm gonna be pissed at the rules lawyer for causing this and pissed at the DM for being unfair to me (the rules lawyer interrupted the game 2176 times before being punished, I get the smack down for doing it just once).
There probably isn't a session that I play that goes by, without someone calling me a rules-lawyer. I do it for the simple reason that the rules, as presented in the book, can be known by anyone, so they know the limits of what they can and cannot do. Just like in real life, I know I can't flap my arms and fly (because I don't have a fly speed :P), so I like to know the limits of myself in game as well.
I GM and play and the GM of the games I play in, play in my games. Both of my GMs are very chaotic and tend to use the rules as they know them, and if they don't know them, make them up. The games I play in also take 3-4 hours for 5 rounds of combat, because everything is so chaotic. In the games I GM, we can get 5-6 encounters done in a 5 hours (not little encounters either), because I enforce the rules, and keep things on pace.
It's very hard to sit down and play a game when you don't know the rules because someone else changes them to suit their needs on a whim. I have one GM that insists on doing things, and then when I point something out, says, "I'm telling a story" and leaves it at that. Meanwhile, that Troll attacks, moves (somehow not provoking AoO), scoops up a child, opens, walks through, and closes a door, then locks it, all in one round because he wants to tell a story. Then we, as the PCs, get hounded and decried by the townspeople because we couldn't save the child.
Yes, I am bitter about that exact situation and I very nearly quit the table when it happened. I was very pissed when my wizard was decried as being devil-spawn and a necromancer, because I couldn't save the child from the troll.
How does it piss off bystanders?In this case you have a problem with one rule lawyer type. You make your decree. I see something questionable, even though I have never in the last twenty some-adventures, questioned a ruling you made, I now either have to keep my pie hole shut or risk losing XP. I perceive that to being punished for something I didn't do. I'm gonna be pissed at the rules lawyer for causing this and pissed at the DM for being unfair to me (the rules lawyer interrupted the game 2176 times before being punished, I get the smack down for doing it just once).
You only get punished for being wrong or for continuing to argue even after the GM has reviewed your case and interpreted it differently. The best time to challenge my ruling is during PC bookkeeping time or before or after a session. Since there are no encounters running at those points you aren't interrupting my game and can't lose XP. In your case you either KNOW you are right and stop the encounter to enlighten me, you aren't sure and wait till it isn't your turn so you can look it up first, or you wait till downtime and start a debate.
I am a 'reformed' rules lawyer (I now know when to quit usually).
One way to deal with me was to make me the DM. You could offer that to your player.
With that said alot of the reason I rules lawyer is because (to me) the game is a game with rules and when the rules are not followed its like standing on ground that is unstable. You dont know how to play, what to do, or when you will step on another unstable patch.
However, if I am going into a game and there are either house rules or 'free form rules' I accept that IF I know about it in advance. An example: I have played D&D where the rules were more of a guideline than an actual rules system and as such I expected that none of the rules would be followed.
While there are many possible motivations for rules lawyering if both you and the player is willing to work on a solution it should be ok. If the player is not willing or you cannot agree on a solution then itll continue until one of you decides not to play with the other. Regretably, I was on the receiving end of that several times in my early days playing. - Gauss
|
|
I am a reformed rules lawyer myself, and I quit by not wanting to ruin the game. But this guy I speak of believes it is his duty as a diveine being to lawyer everything I do. I knew 3.5 like no one else and the switch to Pathfinder confuses me sometimes. Grapple for instance. Ugh. But when he is wrong 30% of the time or we change to his view and he still keeps going on and on. You know my dilemma.
Regrettably, it took a multi-year hiatus and surgery (not a joke unfortunately) for me to gain the wisdom to stop arguing every little point. Alas, not everyone is a "bad" rules lawyer because of a health condition. - Gauss
|
|
I consider myself a "consistent rules" lawyer. If a dm rules an interpretation of the rules, or houserules, I like it consistent. Having rules work one way today, and a different way the next, does not sit well with me. When a dm rules in a particular way, I usually ask if that will be that way always, and if there inconsistencies, I let it be known. I usually ask about houserules at the start of a campaign. I hate being surprised with odd interpretations, or houserules.
You only get punished for being wrong or for continuing to argue even after the GM has reviewed your case and interpreted it differently. The best time to challenge my ruling is during PC bookkeeping time or before or after a session. Since there are no encounters running at those points you aren't interrupting my game and can't lose XP. In your case you either KNOW you are right and stop the encounter to enlighten me, you aren't sure and wait till it isn't your turn so you can look it up first, or you wait till downtime and start a debate.
I used to be able bring up questions without worry. Now you've now changed the whole dynamic of player/DM interaction to a more adversarial one. That will never be a good thing.
Regardless, I'm still cheesed off at the rules lawyer for causing this whole problem to begin with. Aranna used to be cool, til dumbass over there couldn't shut up. Hmmm. What can I do to screw with his character....(and it just goes downhill from there).
I've seen this. It doesn't end well. Much better to deal with the problem directly.
What do you do about a rules lawyer who just wont quit. I cant afford to not have him in may game either or itll be down to two.
I've run a game before with only 2 people. It's challenging, but absolutely doable--I did it when I was a fairly inexperienced GM. More to the point, it is astronomically preferable to playing with people who refuse to cooperate.
Further, there's always someone desperate to game out there. Post at the gamer connection subforum here and/or advertise at game stores and gaming clubs.
But there is no point to gaming if you are not having fun. I hope you work something out (see below) but if in the end of the day, you're miserable and this guy is the cause of it, you need to think carefully about much your continuing to put up with this is worth it.
He debates everything thinking his way really is the righteous way to do things.
You need to talk to him and explain to him you are not having fun and why.
Work with him to come to a compromise. He can write down his objections and you can discuss them at the end of the game, for example, and promise he gets a fair hearing. Just not right in the middle of things.
Or that he gets a limit of how many times he can interrupt the game with a rules question.
The suggestion of letting him be GM for awhile isn't a bad one, but if he's the type of person who always twists rules to his advantage, this and GMing can be a bad combo. There's a difference between the RAW Rules Lawyer, who can be a decent GM if they have a fair amount of common sense, and the "break the system constantly so I always get to win" Rules Lawyer, who is likely not to make fair rulings.
Whatever you do, do NOT punish him by doing nasty things to his character or docking XP. That kind of passive aggressiveness just invites further disruptive behavior.
|
Ask him to GM. He knows the rules better than you do, I'm sure he's also a better GM...
Seriously though, encourage him to transition to a GM role, maybe a short mini-adventure or a whole session every now and then. There is a chance he'd be a great GM, and it would give you the opportunity to run a PC. This also gives him a legit outlet to push his ego if he's RL'ing for a power trip, just be prepared to be patient as a player. Also, once he switches the sides of the GM screen, he might come to better realize how much of a task you as GM have to remember 1) the base rules, 2) your NPC and monsters' rules, 3) the PC's rules for all of their 9000 abilities and magic items and feats and spells, and 4) juggle the plot in there somewhere too.
If he flat out refuses to GM, remind him about rule 0, and that if he has rules complaints, write them down and you two can discuss them after the session.
Don't be an ass, be polite. If he's doing it for attention, being cordial will take some of the wind out of his sails. Don't show *un*favorites in retaliation.
Also, start looking for another member to join your group, just in case it does all go south and you're down to 2.
Well, is he
1) Right most of the time
2) Pointing out things that work against him
3) Pointing out things that end up being clearly spelled out in the rules, or is he arguing gray areas open for interpretation.
If he isn't punished he won't stop.
IRL you can't spank him for being naughty... You can however penalize him fairly for his game disruptions by docking XP.
The only other real alternatives are kicking him out or putting up with it.
|
Take away his battlemat.
I had one a couple years ago, so one session I told them I was going to start making combat more cinematic by taking away the battlemat. You should've seen his face when he realized there was no realistic way to justify his complaints to me when we weren't counting exact squares.
And then he stopped being a rules-lawyer. Rules Lawyer 0, Malebranche 1.
The only other real alternatives are kicking him out or putting up with it.Or maybe talking to him instead of punishing him. :/
Whoa whoa whoa, TOZ, lets not go crazy here.
|
|
I tend to rules-lawyer myself. I do so only for the sake of consistency. As some have stated, having rules allows players to make proper chioces. When those rules get warped on the spot the effect is that choices are taken away from the player. It has an arbitrary feel and is never any fun.
When GMing, I strive to have absolutely no house rules whatsoever. This gives all my players complete knowledge of their options. I never take any of those options away unless there is a specific reason for it, even if I don't tell the player what the reason is. My players know this and they know that when I make a ruling, I'm following the rules. It's a level of trust I don't abuse.
However, during those (thankfully infrequent) times when a player points out a flaw, we immediately look it up. I remember Rule 0 and use it arbitrate any possible grey area.
That said, are you sure you're correct in your decisions? Knowing the rules is the best defense against a disruptive rules lawyer, and applying those rules equally to all players and NPC's. Is the player trying to twist the rules to his advantage? In other words, cheat. If that's the case, then you need to tell the player that he's just disturbing play and to cut it out. You must be certain that you are correct the majority of the time, though, or else the player will feel justified in pointing out when you depart from the rules.
Know the rules.
Throw my hat into the "I rule-lawyer for fairness across the board" ring. My group was not very strong on the cover/reach weapons situation. I was playing a halfling with a longspear, and very much annoying my GM by attacking with reach past our fighter, and dancing around him to avoid getting nailed by the NPC's. I took it upon myself to dig in depth into cover, soft cover, and how reach weapons work, and as a result, we now know you get +4 ac when you have cover (or soft cover). As a result, my character was having a hard time hitting creatures, and ended up switching weapon styles to a non-reach weapon. We also learned about cover rules when fighting around doorways and the like. All in all, the GM is happy because I am vulnerable when in fights, and his creatures last a little longer against us, and we are happy because we can understand how to move to avoid the AC bonuses for the enemy, or get them for ourselves.
The last 5 local spats about 'Rules Lawyering' have ALL boiled down to lazy a***d people failing to even read the rules before setting up game, or failing to follow the rules they have read. I quit one group when the 'dm' and a player colluded to insult players and often cheat. The 'dm' claimed he would fix problems that came up in game, but made a point of sticking it to those who did what he asked and brought up mis-cues post game.
I kept a notepad of rules 'get-overs' that he pulled in game and noted details as asked. I noted where the relevant rules were as asked and presented them to him. The next game, I got dumped into a stagnant pond (slippery stones that were dry when I went out on them) and had to endure 7 rounds of underwater non-combat under 4 different sets of swim rules (all wrong, and, No, he wouldn't even read the book in front of him) only to be 'saved' when the 30 lb Halfling with a 6 STR saw that the party was doomed and offered me (210 lb human with medium encumbrance) a hand out supposedly drawing an AoO from 3 foes, none of which occurred. Post game, I found that he had told everyone that I was an unreasonable rules lawyer and lied about my following his proscribed procedure. He refused to even say this to my face. What really tiffed me off was that he had a really great system for clearing up problems and he refused to honor it.
Honestly consider what your RL sez. Having a written account and the supporting rule attached is a great help. Put a time limit on the appeal. Do not retaliate. Have a problem with a rule? Fix it. Even Gygax wasn't perfect.
The only other real alternatives are kicking him out or putting up with it.Or maybe talking to him instead of punishing him. :/
You do realize you should be talking with your players ALL the time TOZ, not just when they are disruptive. Forgive me for thinking the GM had already talked with the player about it.
To the OP, you've said yourself that sometimes you interpret things from a 3.5e perspective where they are clearly different in PFRPG. Are these the instances that are being 'rules lawyered'?
In our game, one of the biggest rules sticking points is that our GM (bless his soul) is converting a 3.5-setting to PF. So many times there are abilities that work different on the included monsters, etc (mainly dealing with stuff that now uses CMB/CMD - sometimes he can find a PFRPG Bestiary analogy, sometimes not). We have a somewhat split crowd - me and one other enjoy getting the rules 100% right while some others in our group get bored when we have to take a minute break to look something up. The issue is when people have a difference of interpretation - generally from thinking about PFRPG in the 3.5-sense. Sometimes the GM just has to make a decision and move on.
IMO - everyone needs to be 100% up on their own class, etc and the GM needs to be up on the NPCs/monsters/encounters he introduces. If you, as a player, are going to use grapple - please (for the love of Helm) know how it works. Same goes with spells, and just about any action your player is going to take. If everyone took a few extra minutes out of game to reread the rules in the books once in a while, it could prevent a lot of strife in the game. After playing dozens of different RPG systems, it's easy to get the little things confused.
You do realize you should be talking with your players ALL the time TOZ, not just when they are disruptive. Forgive me for thinking the GM had already talked with the player about it.The only other real alternatives are kicking him out or putting up with it.Or maybe talking to him instead of punishing him. :/
What TOZ is saying is that punishing won't really address the problem. It will create more strife. This is just a game and you should be playing with your friends. Demerits are not really effective and can actually be harmful to your relationships with people you are supposed to enjoy hanging around.
If, after talking it over, things don't change then it may be time to discuss other gaming options. There are some friends I don't game with because we know that our styles are not compatible.
