|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder. I’ve spent hours and hours poring over the rulebooks and know most of the rules inside out. I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s&#~ on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule. Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it? I have never used my powers for evil, but my extensive knowledge is so feared that none of my friends will GM Pathfinder for me.
So what is my grand reward for my love of the game? Never getting to play it.
#firstworldproblems :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.
Have you considered not sharing the rule unless asked? Sometimes people like to work their own way out. Sometimes they don't want to take the time to figure out the rule because the on the fly method is faster and every one is still having fun.
As a rules lawyer myself I have learned to keep my mouth shut unless the DM is being consistently unfair in his rulings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having some small experience with playing with Rules Lawyers in the game I have an opinion on why people don't like them.
I have noticed that when expounding on a ruling by the GM most Rules Lawyers have a very confrontational attitude toward any misuse of the rules. If I may make a suggestion, try presenting your information in a non-confrontational way. Say someting on the line of, "I believe the rules say that ....... However, you are the GM and we will play it however you want." Saying something like, "You're wrong. The rules say this..." is not going to get you a hearing with most GM's.
Granted some GM's absolutely refuse to allow any known Rules Lawyers into their game. Personally my take on Rules Lawyers is this, during the game if you can show me where I made a mistake in 5 minutes or less I will consider it. If you must take longer than that see me after the game. However, don't be surprised if I stand by my decision.
Just my 2 cp. YMMV.
|
|
I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.Have you considered not sharing the rule unless asked? Sometimes people like to work their own way out. Sometimes they don't want to take the time to figure out the rule because the on the fly method is faster and every one is still having fun.
As a rules lawyer myself I have learned to keep my mouth shut unless the DM is being consistently unfair in his rulings.
I've tried to keep my mouth shut, but my rules lawyer sense is too strong. I squirm around like a dog eating toffee until I can't keep the 'wrongness' bottled in anymore. :(
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Pored over* not "poured over." Sorry, if you're going to self-identify as a "rules laywer" I can't help but give you some grammar rules...
If none of your friends will GM for you, it's not because you know the rules better.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Pored over* not "poured over." Sorry, if you're going to self-identify as a "rules laywer" I can't help but give you some grammar rules...
Yes, you have corrected me because I am wrong. I accept that am in error and have changed it. This is the reaction that I expect people to have when I correct their rules errors. I only do it for the benefit of the game, not to be a knob.
If none of your friends will GM for you, it's not because you know the rules better.
It is. They will run anything else for me, just not Pathfinder. ( I don't rule Lawyer other systems because I see them as 'inferior'.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is. They will run anything else for me, just not Pathfinder.
If none of your friends will GM for you, it's not because you know the rules better.
As long as you reach this conclusion, you're probably going to continue to be unable to play PF.
No skin off my nose at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Time to start GM'ing? Thats kind of when Rule Lawyers shine anyway.
|
|
It is. They will run anything else for me, just not Pathfinder.
If none of your friends will GM for you, it's not because you know the rules better.As long as you reach this conclusion, you're probably going to continue to be unable to play PF.
No skin off my nose at all.
Your spurious and vague response does not tally with tally with the point I was trying to make but thank you for your time. I hope other people on the forum are able to benefit from your unique wisdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your spurious and vague response does not tally with tally with the point I was trying to make but thank you for your time. I hope other people on the forum are able to benefit from your unique wisdom.
LOL, I hope so too since you don't appear to be benefiting from it.
|
|
One of the biggest things to be careful of when being a Rules Lawyer is pushing. If the GM makes a call, and you KNOW it to be in error, mention that there is a rule that works differently. If the GM says he/she's running with his/her original decision, drop the issue! Only if he/she asks for you to elaborate do you even attempt to explain the rule. If you can't keep playing without feeling uneasy about the call, then you should likely either start running games or leave the system for awhile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a GM with 30+ years under my belt, GMing over a dozen different systems, I find rules lawyers at the table to be both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing to have players who know the rules better than you do. I can say, "Hey, Stu, what's the penalty for attacking when prone again?" and get an answer faster than flipping pages or querying the PRD (if I'm GMing from my laptop).
They're a curse when they get argumentative and break the flow of the game. Or when they're just plain wrong. Or when they're being a jerk about it. (Or, in far too many times than I can recall, all three at once!)
In my current game, I have two players who do know the PFRPG rules better than I do. I mostly trust both of them when they point out that I'm doing something wrong, and I usually adjust what I'm doing accordingly (e.g. "Hey-- the monster has a 20% miss chance because I'm standing in dim light!") But if I don't agree with their interpretation, or it's not a quick fix, I don't like to interrupt the flow of the game to verify that their interpretation is the correct one.
(There have been more than one occasion where they quoted a 3.5 or third-party rule, or we just mis-remembering something. They may be rules lawyers, but neither has eidetic memory!)
Surprisingly, just about every time one of them was wrong, it was in his own PC's favor. (Yes, I did say "his." It's been my observation that 19 out of 20 rules lawyers are male.)
The standing rule at my table is both simple and elegant: The GM makes a table ruling for that particular encounter so as not to interrupt the flow of the game, and will look up the real rules before the next session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you serious? What you need to understand is that people don't like to be told they are wrong, specially a GM who's interpretation of a rule helped him create the interesting scene he has opened up for you.
If it's a player messing up the rules then that is the GM's call to do something about it not yours and by saying "well the rules say this" your undermining the authority of the GM.
The biggest issue I have with rules lawyers is the fact that with all your expansive knowledge of the rules you forget the most important one, and no this isn't something someone just made up, it is in the rule book.
ALL RULES ARE SIMPLY GUIDELINES FOR THE GM TO FOLLOW AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE GM'S INTERPRETATION.
What this means is that what the GM says ARE the rules and if a GM doesn't correct a player on his interpretation on a rule then his interpretation is the rule. If you have any objections about a call, save them for after a game or for during a break in the game, because interrupting the game just to tell someone they are wrong is an a$~~&&$ thing to do no matter how you word it.
The best and only solution for your problem is to simply understand that what the GM says IS the rule and stop interrupting the game
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I usually give any rules lawyer at my table a job as rules lookup and QA dude.
But I make it clear in my games that if I say a monster or NPC can do something, they can do it and I have absolutely no need to justify it by rules. It's my world. Period.
I've played with a lot of rules laywers over the years and some I readily acknowledge know the rules better than I do.
I've never had a problem with someone knowing the rules better. What I do have a problem with is someone not understanding social niceties and common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder. I’ve spent hours and hours poring over the rulebooks and know most of the rules inside out. I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.
Since I'm a bit of a rules lawyer myself, I think I know what the problem is.
The thing is, if you stop the game to state that either a GM or a player is doing something wrong then you're breaking up the flow of the game. Plus, people simply don't always like being told that they are wrong in mid game. It is generally better to just mention the issues to the GM after the game is over. If the GM actually cares, he will catch on and improve over time.
There are only a few cases where it is generally alright to interrupt a game by 'clarifying' a rule:
1. When people are obviously unsure of what the rule is supposed to be and are asking what the correct rule is.
2. When a major and game breaking event will happen because a rule is being broken.
3. When it will save another player's character.
Even in the above cases you have to be very careful because people can still be annoyed if it happens too often. You also need to try and keep the event from happening in the first place because GMs hate undoing events that have already happened.
For most rules problems, just hold it in and mention the issue to the GM after the game is over. Try to be non-confrontational about it. Be careful about this because some people will be annoyed even by this. If you're playing with a group that doesn't even want to discuss the correct rules AFTER a session, then you might want to find a new group because they'll just drive you crazy.
You may also want to make sure that you know all of the GM's house rules before each game so you don't end up arguing about those.
I love Pathfinder. I’ve spent hours and hours poring over the rulebooks and know most of the rules inside out. I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s%++ on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule. Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it? I have never used my powers for evil, but my extensive knowledge is so feared that none of my friends will GM Pathfinder for me.
So what is my grand reward for my love of the game? Never getting to play it.
#firstworldproblems :(
Not quite what I was expecting when I opened this thread. A "rules lawyer" in my understanding has always been someone that bends the rules to their advantage. The dead characters can still act, because while the rules have "dead" as a condition, they don't place limits on it, or you can talk while holding your breath, because talking is free action, and free actions are allowed while holding your breath. That is a "rules lawyer," a person that does his best to ignore reality, because the rules don't define it.
I've never had a problem with someone knowing the rules better. What I do have a problem with is someone not understanding social niceties and common sense.
This.
To sum up my previous comment: I don't mind rules lawyers at my table at all, as long as they're not being a jerk about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite what I was expecting when I opened this thread. A "rules lawyer" in my understanding has always been someone that bends the rules to their advantage. The dead characters can still act, because while the rules have "dead" as a condition, they don't place limits on it, or you can talk while holding your breath, because talking is free action, and free actions are allowed while holding your breath. That is a "rules lawyer," a person that does his best to ignore reality, because the rules don't define it.
There is also a rules lawyer that always needs the game to follow the rules in the book. If the rules in the book aren't followed then the lawyer becomes confused because he is no longer certain that taking a certain action will lead to a certain result. In effect, the laws of physics that drive the game world become unstable, and this leads the lawyer to become frustrated and unsure of how to interact with the game world.
In order to get the game world to make sense again, the lawyer will feel that he has to fix things by stating what the rules say *should* have happened.
At least, that is how it works with me. Luckily, I've brought my rule correcting compulsions mostly under control ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My counter to rules lawyers that consistently try to correct me if I'm DMing? Rule Zero. You know, that rule that says the DM is free to make up or interpret the rules as he/she/it sees fit. If they can't deal with that, then they can leave. I also reserve the right to alter rulings if I believe that the particular situation warrants a different ruling from what I gave a similar situation. If you don't like a ruling, make minor mention of it to me during the game("I think that works differently" or something) and then after the game you can carry out a full discussion with me and point me to any reading you want. Otherwise, I don't want you to quote what you perceive as regulations to me during the game. In the words of the cop at the very start of The Matrix, "You give me that juris-my-diction crap, and you can cram it up your ass." Because my game is my jurisdiction, not yours.
I have a feeling that you're trying to be one of those rules lawyers who thinks that if it's in the book, then it's gospel. When the reality is that what the DM says during the game is what you should be thinking of as gospel.
/rant
Non-rant version - I agree with the gist of Haladir's comment, and his experience echoes mine.
Just as it is frustrating and annoying for a player to keep challenging the GM by quoting rules, it is just as annoying for the GM to keep invoking "Rule Zero" to justify a decision.
It is best when the table works as a group to avoid either if these coming up as much as possible.
As a GM I usually give any rules lawyer at my table a job as rules lookup and QA dude.
But I make it clear in my games that if I say a monster or NPC can do something, they can do it and I have absolutely no need to justify it by rules. It's my world. Period.
I've played with a lot of rules laywers over the years and some I readily acknowledge know the rules better than I do.
I've never had a problem with someone knowing the rules better. What I do have a problem with is someone not understanding social niceties and common sense.
This is usually where I have problems with Rules Lawyers, myself included. Often times, a rules lawyer player doesn't have the full picture.
"How does that level 5 fighter have a +18 to hit bonus? That's unpossible!!!"
Well, as a DM I happen to know that the BBEG Cleric buffed the crap out of him before sending him off to fight the PCs, but I can't tell you that because then you know he has spells on him and you will know to hit him with a dispel magic, so I can't tell you anything except that yes, he hit your fighter's 28 AC 3 times in a row.
The problem is that the RLP sees something that doesn't add up, and then they want the DM to show them the math. There are plenty of times when a DM cannot do that without giving the player a ton of metagame information.
You may know the rules better than the DM does, but you do not know what is actually going on in the game better than the DM does.
Not quite what I was expecting when I opened this thread. A "rules lawyer" in my understanding has always been someone that bends the rules to their advantage. The dead characters can still act, because while the rules have "dead" as a condition, they don't place limits on it, or you can talk while holding your breath, because talking is free action, and free actions are allowed while holding your breath. That is a "rules lawyer," a person that does his best to ignore reality, because the rules don't define it.I love Pathfinder. I’ve spent hours and hours poring over the rulebooks and know most of the rules inside out. I share my knowledge with other player’s and GMs at the table whenever a rule dispute pops up. I only do this so everyone has a clear & fair standing, but this annoys a lot of people.
I don’t understand why people ‘make up’ s%++ on the fly instead of using a clearly stated rule. Why would someone pay money for an expensive rule book if they aren’t going to use half of it? I have never used my powers for evil, but my extensive knowledge is so feared that none of my friends will GM Pathfinder for me.
So what is my grand reward for my love of the game? Never getting to play it.
#firstworldproblems :(
My experience/definition has always been closer to Macona's. Yours I've always called a Cheater.
Bless or Aid could grant another +1 for 1 min/level. Won't stack with each other (both are morale bonuses), but it's another available option; scrounging up a single extra +1 shouldn't be too difficult, and could make up for the expensive gloves.
=)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, as a fellow rules lawyer I know your Pain. I play with very role play heavy groups which I love and I have gotten a bad reputation as a rules lawyer. I realized the rules are great but are nothing with no one to play with. So here are 4 tips I used to keep from getting my ass booted.
1. Unless it is about to screw your party never bring up a rule during game. Your party loves it if you save them but otherwise you are breaking the momentum of the scene. So write it down and ASK about it during a break. Then the GM is getting educated and you are not making everyone cry.
2. Accept that the GM is never wrong and if he changes his mind it only makes him more right. If you bring up a rule and the GM says "I am gonna run it this way" it means he has made a choice to handle it that way for a reason. Enjoy the game and don't get hung up on the details.
3. Take a break from rules and memorize lore. People hate rules lawyers but love those who can add to the environment. If you run into a cleric of Shelyn and people ask "who is Shelyn?" being able to to tell them that she is the goddess of beauty and love who wars with none and believes in the the truly beautiful self who is beautiful outside and in and that she is slowly purifying the most evil weapon to exist makes them feel like they are more a part of the environment.
4. Use you powers for Good not just for not evil. I get my rules rocks off by helping other players who don't care about the rules as much keep their numbers straight. I made a bard/duelist in my party a sheet that tracks his attack and damage when using his many abilities. He is happy, the GM is happy because he doesn't have to spend 5 min a turn counting and I am happy because I made someones life easier.
I am still working on this personally and have lapses from time to time but it has done wonders for me. The path of a rules lawyer is never easy but it can be a blessing if controlled.
I hope that helps :)
Would a Bard's Wailing and Moaning, stack with any of that?
Yep. Inspire Competence gives a Competence bonus to attacks, so it would stack with Bless or Aid. There's your other +1.
Yes but inspire competence is a bardic performance. I.E. the bard has to be in the room.Would a Bard's Wailing and Moaning, stack with any of that?Yep. Inspire Competence gives a Competence bonus to attacks, so it would stack with Bless or Aid. There's your other +1.
Also true. I was just answering the question as presented =)
You can find out exactly what you are at MyPersonality but I'm pretty sure I have you pegged as either an INTP or an INTJ.Hardcore INTJ forever! Screw being close to the middle :P
LOL, not many of us INTJ's around, odd how many end up in RPGs and especially as GMs. :)
Personally, as a GM, I hate rules lawyers. They are up there with power gamers/over-optimizers. i have had to deal with too many who feel the rules are set in stone and immutable.
But saying that, I have learnt to utilise them. When something comes up that I can't remember (usually something involving grapples) I turn to the RL and ask him/her. It helps me and the group out, and allows to feel useful with their knowledge.
But RLs do need to learn that the rules are just guidelines and if the GM feels the need to alter something it is their perview to do so.