|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know people are probably going to throw troll responses at this, maybe you that do or want to should take this to heart. (I kind of lump rules lawyers, jerks and power gamers in one category)
Too often we look for wording where there is none or put emphasis on a word to get away with what we want to do. We do this in game and in life to try and get the most benefit for "me". We tend to dismiss the spirit of the rule. We try to morph something into what it is not. I know we all do this to some extent. There are a lot more "creative" players then there are developers. Just to let you know the developers miss some things once and awhile.
There is a "Don't be a jerk" rule in PFS. It seems a lot of people have skipped over this and it commonly manifests itself in a couple different ways:
People that tend to lawyer up can slow a game down to a crawl, frustrate the GM and players (new and old) leaving several dissatisfied customers. If you have an issue, hold it till after the scenario unless it is something that the GM is doing wrong that results in a player death. Now notice I did not just end it at doing something wrong, I kept typing. What did that second part say? I know some of you skipped it. It said "that results in a players death". If you are a GM that likes to lawyer up, relax, you are there to foster cooperation and fun among the players, not beat them to a pulp with your knowledge of the game.
I remember some of my early days playing a certain MMO. Know matter what class you had, there was the premium build and if you did not have it then you were worthless and should just quit the game. I personally do not need others to tell me how to play or build my character. I know there are a lot of others out there in the same position. I know that if a player (new or old) needs help in building a character, I do just that, HELP. I do not build it for them, I do not tell them what to do in game. If they don't know what to do, I let them GM handle it. If I am the GM, I give them several options on what they could do mechanically. But I always ask them what do they want to do and I help them get to that point.
This game is a cooperative game, which means everyone should be included. With that there are many different people that play. You are not the A-typical player. Which means that not everyone wants to be you. There are currently 21 legal classes with 10 more to soon be released. Oh and every class has a multitude of archetypes. Oh, and you can be more than one class as you level. Point is, there is no one way to build a character. Some people like to have a role play aspect to their ROLE PLAYING GAME. I have seen too many people have that shoot first mentality. This is a adventure, not a first person shooter. Quoting a friend of mine, "there is no winning PFS" yet it seems that people keep trying to. How much fun do you really have when another player one shots a NPC before you ever get to say a word. (Oh you just one-shot killed a possessed NPC that we needed information from... good job ex-lax) Listen I know there will always be power-gamers out there, and it is real easy with all the splat books that are out there, just tone it down. You do not need to do over a hundred points of damage at first level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know people are probably going to throw troll responses at this, maybe you that do or want to should take this to heart. (I kind of lump rules lawyers, jerks and power gamers in one category)
Way to poison the well, there. Is it not possible that there are actual ambiguities in the rules and so reasonable people can actually have honest disagreements about how they should be interpreted?
Is it not possible to just let people play the game they want to play without nagging them about how they're Doing It Wrong (tm)?
This game is a cooperative game, which means everyone should be included.
I agree 100% Jeff so maybe check out that beam in your eye before you go digging at the mote in somebody else's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of lump rules lawyers, jerks and power gamers in one category
This is more than problematic.
"power gaming" is incredibly hard to define. At some level almost everyone is going to optimize to some extent- its pretty rare to get a wizard with a 7 int and a 20 strength for example. Taking that further than someones very subjective interpretation of how strong a character "should" be is almost inevitable, especially when you don't pick the party or the players.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To offer a different point of view...
If any of you are at a table I am GMing, and I make a rules mistake, please call me on it. I can handle it, I promise.
If you are playing at a table with me, and you can one-shot the BBEG and I can focus on the story, then I might shake your hand and thank you.
Play your character the way you want, let me play my character the way I want, and we will get along just fine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To offer a different point of view...
If any of you are at a table I am GMing, and I make a rules mistake, please call me on it. I can handle it, I promise.
This.
There are some things I'm still unclear on. There are battles I will fight and battles I will concede. However, if it is taking up too much time, I will make a call and I expect the player to abide by it, whether we find out later that it was right or wrong. It's learning, for everyone. Whether this is cover from large creatures or whether or not a reach weapon can attack two diagonals away.
Just... don't tell me how to run my game, and don't commandeer someone else's character. We all have our own play styles. Respect the differences. Embrace the unknown. Love the variables.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dont be that plsyer at the table either when the gm makes a ruling to keep the game on pace and to keep the fun level up that has to break out the rule book and go "actually he couldnt have jumped to the moving blah blah blah, like 20 minutes after you have already passed that moment... then continuously harp on it every game day for the next year.
Games are kinda meant to be fun
|
|
People can do some things to inadvertently promote the things you are trying not to see.
By nature I am pretty meticulous and spend hours upon hours building many of my characters and planning their progression (many of which never even see the light of day). Many of them I don't even desire playing until they hit a certain level and my theme, trick, uniqueness, whatever kicks in. I put a lot of investment into making the types of characters I want to play. However, I try to make a point to not overshadow the rest of the party during play. I say all this to make the point that I see some real loss when I lose a character, it wasn't just 10 minutes making them and then whatever time I got to enjoy playing them.
-If I am playing under a GM that seems interested in everyone having a good time and is new, I never mention rule stuff unless they seem to be looking for help or it is an instakill.
-If someone with the same interest in fun for all is GMing but they are more experienced, I might make a quick rule comment here or there that I think they would want to know, but don't press the issue and often add language like "but its cool if you are wanting to do it that way" unless of course it results in major losses.
-If however the GM is constantly bragging about killing PCs, asking other GMs with anticipation if they were able to kill PCs, seeming disappointed when no PCs die, and directly attempt to attack the wealth of PCs, I play very different. With this last GM, I plan to hold them to the letter of law any time it might make a real difference. I also try to avoid playing my concept characters that haven't really came into their own as a powerhouse so I have a lot less chance of losing the time I invested up front.
This should not be misinterpreted by others to think that I am saying I want no challenge. Quite the contrary, I actually love wins that we just barely scrape by on. I am just saying that the more competitive the GM, the more competitive I am as a player.
|
|
People can do some things to inadvertently promote the things you are trying not to see.
By nature I am pretty meticulous and spend hours upon hours building many of my characters and planning their progression (many of which never even see the light of day). Many of them I don't even desire playing until they hit a certain level and my theme, trick, uniqueness, whatever kicks in. I put a lot of investment into making the types of characters I want to play. However, I try to make a point to not overshadow the rest of the party during play. I say all this to make the point that I see some real lose when I lose a character, it wasn't just 10 minutes making them and then whatever time I got to enjoy playing them.
-If I am playing under a GM that seems interested in everyone having a good time and is new, I never mention rule stuff unless they seem to be looking for help or it is an instakill.
-If someone with the same interest in fun for all is GMing but they are more experienced, I might make a quick rule comment here or there that I think they would want to know, but don't press the issue and often add language like "but its cool if you are wanting to do it that way" unless of course it results in major losses.
-If however the GM is constantly bragging about killing PCs, asking other GMs with anticipation if they were able to kill PCs, seeming disappointed when no PCs die, and directly attempt to attack the wealth of PCs, I play very different. With this last GM, I plan to hold them to the letter of law any time it might make a real difference. I also try to avoid playing my concept characters that haven't really came into their own as a powerhouse so I have a lot less chance of losing the time I invested up front.
This should not be misinterpretation by others to think that I am saying I want no challenge. Quite the contrary, I actually love wins that we just barely scrape by on. I am just saying that the more competitive the GM, the more competitive I am as a player.
I believe you are getting to the heart of what I was saying, about not overshadowing others and knowing when to bring up a rule. I thank you for doing that. I personally love a challenge and my own personal philosophy is "No one is having fun until someone goes below 0, not necessary killing them. Otherwise it is just a face-roll and no one is having fun with that."
On a second note: if you have a GM that is bragging about killing PC's then that is an issue that needs to be brought up to the store coordinator or a VO. That just develops a bad reputation. Now if there are a couple GM's that give a ribbing to each other about killing each other's characters, that is something else. (please keep this comment out of the rest of the thread to keep it focused on the original post. If someone wants to start a thread about GM killing machines, please do.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want to prevent a game from bogging down from rules discussions? Here's what you can do as a player: make sure YOU know how the rule works before it is your turn! Get out your Core Rulebook (the one that you are supposed to own to play PFS, but which I rarely see at any table) and look up the rule while other people are taking their turns.
|
To offer a different point of view...
If any of you are at a table I am GMing, and I make a rules mistake, please call me on it. I can handle it, I promise.
If you are playing at a table with me, and you can one-shot the BBEG and I can focus on the story, then I might shake your hand and thank you.
Play your character the way you want, let me play my character the way I want, and we will get along just fine.
I mostly agree with this. I do have a few minor modifications.
If you call me on a rules mistake and I disagree, unless its important please delay the discussion until later. I might be right, I might be wrong, the rule might be ambiguous, but now isn't the best time to go into it. Unless its important.
Occasionally one shifting the BBEG is fine. If you're shutting down all combat encounters you've over optimized.
Some advice (especially if done in character) can be fine. But try to be sensitive to how much advice the player wants.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To offer a different point of view...
If any of you are at a table I am GMing, and I make a rules mistake, please call me on it. I can handle it, I promise.
If you are playing at a table with me, and you can one-shot the BBEG and I can focus on the story, then I might shake your hand and thank you.
Play your character the way you want, let me play my character the way I want, and we will get along just fine.
I don't think it's the correcting of a rules mistake ... it's the badgering about it after the GM has heard the player and has made a ruling -- personally I've learned a lot from the players in regards to the rules with taking a moment to say "ok, explain it to me", they do I'm good with their explanation in the moment and move on.
There are instances where I have gone back and relooked at the information afterwards, but I wouldn't have changed the way I ruled on it.
I think that if you can explain what you are trying to do in a clear concise manner most GMs (can't speak for all of them) are going to be ok with it. Even though we are GMs we aren't all rules robots and don't know all the rules out there. I know I rely on the player to know the rules specific for their character -- I know the rules for the NPCs and if there are questions they can be looked up quickly or have a consensus arrived at that everyone is happy with and we move on.
I've had players continue to argue with me after I ruled in their favor, just continuing to berate their point til I was like ok, fine you can't do that now drop it. Then they were made cause I told them no lol. There are some players that just aren't happy no matter what, and there are some players I think that simply like to hear their own voices.
I've also just talked over a rules lawyer and ignored them until they settled down. I figure once I adjudicate the ruling and state that it's final and we can discuss it after the game, the conversation is over. Rules lawyering at the table may be fun for a few, but it's not fun for the majority and once you start a long rules conversation you've lost the rest of the table.
Ask Dan Luckett lol .. he told me he was going to be at my table for a specific scenario at a convention, I flat out told him to leave his rules lawyer at the door or find another table. Yes, in one scenario I do a little bit of fluff breaking of how something works .. does it make the scenario waaaaayyyyy more funner?? Yeppers it does, I've never had complaints on that scenario.{pm if you want to know what I do lol}
I think the biggest thing to remember is that everyone is playing for fun and enjoyment of the game -- no matter what form that takes. What some people need to remember is that endless discussions on the minutiae of the game are not fun for everyone and that they need to temper how much they do it. If you find a GM ignoring you while you ramble on about a 1 square issue, perhaps you need to just hush and enjoy the game for a few minutes :)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...
Well, Jeff, I'd say I agree with you about most of the specifics you mention; people shouldn't try to force others to take certain actions on their turn, shouldn't try to convince them of one true way to build their PC, shouldn't hog the spotlight, etc.
My only concern from your OP is that you couched all those legitimate concerns in terms that lump them in with things that aren't problems. Your OP reads as though you've got a bone to pick with anyone who might challenge your ruling or build a powerful character, even if they do so responsibly. Sounds pretty combative, in fact.
For example, rules are one of my main strengths, and are the thing I leverage to greatest effect as a GM to provide my players with a fun time. As a "rules guy", even though I use rules to enable fun rather than hinder it, I felt downright attacked reading your post.
About halfway through you started getting a little more specific, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't meaning to convey what it seemed like at first. I also give the benefit of the doubt to people who whack me with their animated gestures while talking about something that excites them, but I still ask them to be more careful next time, so I'm going to do the same here: please be more precise in your complaints/pleas in the future, so as not to catch in the crossfire those who are responsibly talented with the same tools that others abuse.
Thanks, and I hope you get through to those who need it. :)
|
Jiggy,
I don't think he was saying that he has a bone to pick with anyone who challenges his ruling, but he DOES if they do it in the middle of the game instead of afterwords, taking up time and stopping the game.
You call yourself a "rules guy." Why not use the term "Rules Lawyer?" Because we all have a negative connotation with that gamer trope, and you probably don't fit into the that mold at all with your rules knowledge and play style. It's not a positive moniker and I don't think Jeff (correct me if I'm wrong) is referring to your type of play style at all.
The same way people who optimize their characters don't generally like to be called "Power Gamers." There is a negative stereotype associated with that name as well. You can min-max characters all you like, but until you start taking over the game with a 'look-what-I-can-do' attitude, you aren't the type of player that Jeff is referring to.
I think most of us can agree that the stereotypical "Rules Lawyer" and "Power Gamer" attitudes aren't in line with what a cooperative role playing game should be and exhibit "Jerk-y" behavior.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I like it when there are players at my table who know the rules, so if I have any questions I double check with them. And I don't mind when these players point out rule inconsitencies that they know are 100% correct. What I really hate is when someone who thinks they know the rules always saying you are doing it wrong and they are often wrong themselves. Each time we have to look it up and slow down the game. If you are one of these people before you say a rule is wrong look it up first and then in fact if it is wrong point it out at a approriate time.
Having the rules knowlegable players at the table can assist with the think they know the rules players by backing up the GM without even having to look up the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To offer a different point of view...
If any of you are at a table I am GMing, and I make a rules mistake, please call me on it. I can handle it, I promise.
I agree with this, with two restrictions:
1) I use the one-round rule. If a mistake changes how combat progresses, I'm willing to ret-con one round. After that, it's "Oops--well, I know better for next combat."This is not just rules questions, but things like "I meant to hit Number 2, you applied damage to Number 1" and "I forgot to add the bardic performance--does +2 to that roll change things?" If nobody catches the mistake before the end of the mistaken actor's next turn, it's way too complicated. (I use end instead of beginning here because very often the trigger for realizing the mistake is something like "Hey, why is that bad guy moving? I killed him!")
2) If I disagree with your correction or if the issue isn't immediately resolvable, accept my ruling and move on. I'm happy to discuss it after the game or over email or on the boards. I just don't have time right now, please, because I'm trying to destroy the world over here! If the ruling will result in a character's death or mission failure, I'll take more time to go through it before I rule, I promise.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm, one more thing:
I personally love a challenge and my own personal philosophy is "No one is having fun until someone goes below 0, not necessary killing them. Otherwise it is just a face-roll and no one is having fun with that."
(Bolding added.)
You are wrong about that. Now, maybe YOU aren't having fun until someone goes below 0, and that's fine. But your belief that no one has fun when everybody's still on their feet is incorrect. My wife, for instance, starts to stress a bit if anyone goes down; she's having MORE fun when nobody goes below 0. Were she at your table, your attempts to enforce your own vision of "fun" on everyone else would actively reduce her fun, which is something you should be trying to avoid doing.
Everyone has fun differently, and that's okay. As my wife once put it, "The game is big enough for everybody".
|
|
Hrm, one more thing:
I personally love a challenge and my own personal philosophy is "No one is having fun until someone goes below 0, not necessary killing them. Otherwise it is just a face-roll and no one is having fun with that."(Bolding added.)
You are wrong about that. Now, maybe YOU aren't having fun until someone goes below 0, and that's fine. But your belief that no one has fun when everybody's still on their feet is incorrect. My wife, for instance, starts to stress a bit if anyone goes down; she's having MORE fun when nobody goes below 0. Were she at your table (something I guess I'll have to make sure never happens if I take her to a big convention or anything), your attempts to enforce your own vision of "fun" on everyone else would actively reduce her fun, which is something you should be trying to avoid doing.
Jiggy, I agree with you ... while I respect the OP's position in the land of VOs ... I see that statement as a GM with the "me against you" mentality when at the gaming table.. something no GM should have imo.
Perhaps the original poster will come back in and defend himself ... or perhaps he realizes the volatile nature of a thread like this and has resigned to never reading it again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with The Fox and Dorothy.
In my real life job, you get one shot to make an objection and it's handled right then and there:
If the judge agrees, good.
If the judge agrees and shouldn't have, they fix it on appeal.
If the judge doesn't agree, tough.
If the judge doesn't agrees and should have, they fix it on appeal.
If you forget to object, you probably have a few seconds to object afterwards and get it stricken. After that, you're out of luck.
Dorothy sums up how that should apply in PFS. :)
GMs should be moderators and storytellers, not players for the other side.
If you're fair and consistent, play the NPCs and monsters the way that they are written, and aim for telling a good story, people will respect your calls.
There are stories with epic battles and everybody makes it, and some have heroic last stands.. I like to be surprised about which one I'm telling as much as the players do. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're fair and consistent, play the NPCs and monsters the way that they are written, and aim for telling a good story, people will respect your calls.
There are stories with epic battles and everybody makes it, and some have heroic last stands.. I like to be surprised about which one I'm telling as much as the players do. :)
One of my most memorably fun scenarios as a player wasn't threatening for a second. The bad guys were so pitifully weak that the party couldn't help but roflstomp them. But the GM rolled with it and played up their ineptitude for comedic effect, making them seem like a goofy gang from a musical or something. I had so much fun that I shamelessly stole that angle when I GM'd it myself much, much later.
|
|
Jiggy,
I don't think he was saying that he has a bone to pick with anyone who challenges his ruling, but he DOES if they do it in the middle of the game instead of afterwords, taking up time and stopping the game.
You call yourself a "rules guy." Why not use the term "Rules Lawyer?" Because we all have a negative connotation with that gamer trope, and you probably don't fit into the that mold at all with your rules knowledge and play style. It's not a positive moniker and I don't think Jeff (correct me if I'm wrong) is referring to your type of play style at all.
The same way people who optimize their characters don't generally like to be called "Power Gamers." There is a negative stereotype associated with that name as well. You can min-max characters all you like, but until you start taking over the game with a 'look-what-I-can-do' attitude, you aren't the type of player that Jeff is referring to.
I think most of us can agree that the stereotypical "Rules Lawyer" and "Power Gamer" attitudes aren't in line with what a cooperative role playing game should be and exhibit "Jerk-y" behavior.
Todd thank you for putting it a little more concise on the definitions of "rules lawyers" and "power gamers". I know a few people that are rules people that I do like having at the table. If I know something is coming up that I am vague about, I usually ask them to quickly look it up. Rules people I have no problem with, "rules lawyers" who tend to shut down a session, those are the people I trying to talk to. (not attack)
If fact, if anyone has felt attacked by this posting, I am sorry. This is more about asking people to pick their spots and not fight a GM over every little thing. I know it feels great to be right all the time and I know it also feels great to be able to one-shot all the encounters. But knit-picking at the table tends to frustrate everyone at the table. Also solo one-shotting an encounter can deflate someone else excitement.
|
|
...
GMs should be moderators and storytellers, not players for the other side.
...
I agree with all you said there, Robert, but I would add something more to this. Granted, I will admit, it has taken me a LONG time to get to this point (which PFS has helped immeasurably), but...
GMs should be facilitators for all of the crazy ideas that Players come up with. They should challenge them into making a great story, one that people will be talking about for years, if possible. But, above all, they are facilitators.
A good GM will allow you to try something he (or the scenario's author) hadn't thought of. A GREAT GM will take something you have described in prose (rather than in rules), and turn it into something unique.
Now, I will start by stating that I don't think I am a great GM... yet. But, I try...
So, on to the anecdote.
At the 3-4 subtier of this scenario, when I was running it, the party's Magus (among others) had taken up position in the second level of the manor house. At one point, it became clear that he no longer had any good targets to shoot at with his bow (or wand, whichever). So, the player asks me... "Can I just jump out the window and attack the warrior below me?"
I thought about it a moment, and made a snap ruling. "Sure, but you'll take falling damage if you do." The magus never even thought twice, as he set up a a spell-strike with Shocking Grasp, and lept out the window. Sure enough, a 20 comes up on the die!!! Confirmed!!
34 damage later to a mook that was already down to 4 hp (oops!), and we have the "Incredible Falling Magus Trick!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Todd thank you for putting it a little more concise on the definitions of "rules lawyers" and "power gamers". I know a few people that are rules people that I do like having at the table. If I know something is coming up that I am vague about, I usually ask them to quickly look it up. Rules people I have no problem with, "rules lawyers" who tend to shut down a session, those are the people I trying to talk to. (not attack)
If fact, if anyone has felt attacked by this posting, I am sorry. This is more about asking people to pick their spots and not fight a GM over every little thing. I know it feels great to be right all the time and I know it also feels great to be able to one-shot all the encounters. But knit-picking at the table tends to frustrate everyone at the table. Also solo one-shotting an encounter can deflate someone else excitement.
That's what I thought (hence what I said about giving you the benefit of the doubt). I just wanted to point out that it didn't necessarily come across that way. Most frustration-born posts use those labels far more broadly than you apparently meant them, so it felt like were firing on wide-beam, so to speak. ;)
|
|
Actualy for me, unless the VO is Eric that Category is Titled, "People who don't know the rules" ;)Possibly. I guess I tend to lump VOs into one category.Is that category titled 'Awesome people'? Cause it should be. ;)
To be fair, there are a LOT of rules to this game. Even more so when you add in the stuff specifically for PFS. If you are 100% knowledgable about 100% of the rules for this game, you probably spend too much time looking over the books. Or you work for Paizo. Or both. :P
|
|
That's what I thought (hence what I said about giving you the benefit of the doubt). I just wanted to point out that it didn't necessarily come across that way. Most frustration-born posts use those labels far more broadly than you apparently meant them, so it felt like were firing on wide-beam, so to speak. ;)Todd thank you for putting it a little more concise on the definitions of "rules lawyers" and "power gamers". I know a few people that are rules people that I do like having at the table. If I know something is coming up that I am vague about, I usually ask them to quickly look it up. Rules people I have no problem with, "rules lawyers" who tend to shut down a session, those are the people I trying to talk to. (not attack)
If fact, if anyone has felt attacked by this posting, I am sorry. This is more about asking people to pick their spots and not fight a GM over every little thing. I know it feels great to be right all the time and I know it also feels great to be able to one-shot all the encounters. But knit-picking at the table tends to frustrate everyone at the table. Also solo one-shotting an encounter can deflate someone else excitement.
And I apologize that it came across that way.
...
GMs should be moderators and storytellers, not players for the other side.
...
I agree with all you said there, Robert, but I would add something more to this. Granted, I will admit, it has taken me a LONG time to get to this point (which PFS has helped immeasurably), but...
GMs should be facilitators for all of the crazy ideas that Players come up with. They should challenge them into making a great story, one that people will be talking about for years, if possible. But, above all, they are facilitators.
A good GM will allow you to try something he (or the scenario's author) hadn't thought of. A GREAT GM will take something you have described in prose (rather than in rules), and turn it into something unique.
** spoiler omitted **
I was a rules lawyer. A bad one.
(The comparison is a real one: I've shut down games with my badgering of the rule book and have been in court cases as an attorney with objections and sidebars so long that the jury and judge never remembered what we were talking about. In both cases, it ruined it for everybody.)
I had a great GM growing up who "reformed" me by doing what you said: he let me take something I have described in prose (rather than in rules), and turn it into something unique.
(Such as having a quadriplegic rigger in Shadowrun that had to be thrown out of a window to escape certain death, setting a fire in D&D 2d edition to successfully distract the guards only realize we didn't think about being trapped in a burning castle, jumping out of very tall castles ala Assassin's Creed only to have handfuls of d6 falling damage, etc.)
I think my group secretly enjoyed some of the failures more than the successes because of the way our GM made it happen.
Then, when I was being a rules lawyer, it was precisely mechanics and no fluff.
"You rolled a 13. Your action does not succeed."
I learned very quickly that if I trusted my GM, he would turn mechanics into story. If I didn't, he would just make it dry, horrible and inflexible.
(Which is how a Federal judge cured me of objecting all the time.)
When you're stuck firm to the rules by really strict "call BS on everything" rules lawyers, you lose some of that flexibility and fun that RPGs are meant to have.
There is a time and place for fixing bad calls, and unless it results in PC death/losing cool stuff, I've learned to offer the GM fiat as a tool and alternative to my old GM's anti-rules-lawyering "You rolled ____. Your action does/does not succeed."
As a reformed rules lawyer, I promise that approach works for people like me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lately I find myself frequently recalling one my favorite scenes from the Jet Li movie Fearless. In it, the hero is scheduled to fight a few opponents, one of whom meets with him beforehand to drink tea and talk.
Their conversation turns to the various styles of martial arts. A comment is made about finding the strongest style by having the discernment to be able to evaluate all the details of the various styles and weigh them against each other. The hero, however, states that the winner in a match is not decided by having the superior style (he says there isn't one), but rather that it's a matter of which competitor is more skilled in whichever style he's using. That is, if you win, it's not because you chose a stronger style; it's because you're the stronger competitor.
I keep thinking of this scene in threads like these, where people talk about how to GM well; I think the sentiment from Fearless applies to GMing styles as well. If you're providing great games using your flexible, rules-light GMing style, great! But it's not because that style is superior, it's because you're sufficiently skilled in that style. Conversely, if someone's providing a poor game using a very rules-focused GMing style, it's not because it's an inferior style; it's because that GM does not have the necessary rules proficiency to wield them to great effect. Such a GM doesn't need to switch to a better style; he needs to either switch to a style that he's more naturally adept with, or he needs to simply increase his skill with his chosen style. (And of course there are more styles than just those two; those are just examples.)
Same goes for PC builds, but that's another thread. :)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I think breaking the problem down into categories of players like "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" is misleading and to a certain degree generates a "witch hunt" mentality that can create negative attitudes towards a group of people that do not necessarily deserve it. The real problem is players who suck the fun away from other players by either hogging play time with pointless arguments or dominating the table with power builds so that the other players can't shine.
I have been playing D&D since it first came out. About the time Second Edition came out is when things in D&D really started jelling into a discernible community. The 2E rules were light on crunch and heavy on fluff. This made it difficult for people who might be "rules lawyers" or "power gamers" to gain much edge at the table, while those who focused heavily on the RP aspects found it easy. I can recall many a time when some wannabe actor would completely dominate the game by insisting on lengthy role-playing sequences. Frequently you never got to the action. Many people will still vehemently claim this is the "right" way to play the game, and they too are missing the point, i.e. when one person is hogging up all the fun, no one else is having any.
When 3E came out, it was much heavier on crunch and the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" were suddenly empowered more than they ever had been. As a result, some of them started doing the table dominance I had only previously witnessed from the heavy RPers.
What this shows is that it doesn't matter what someone's playstyle is. Anyone can suck all of the fun out of the table by dominating it. And it is people that do this that are the problem that needs to be dealt with, not the playstyle.
So while I agree with the OP's sentiment, I disagree with him lumping rules lawyers, power gamers and jerks all into the same category. The category should simply be "jerk."
|
|
The real problem is players who suck the fun away from other players by either hogging play time with pointless arguments or dominating the table with power builds so that the other players can't shine.
Ummm, it sounds like you are using a lot of words to express what most people express by saying/typing, "rules lawyers" or "power gamers" ... Perhaps I am missing the nuance. ;-)
I have been playing D&D since it first came out. About the time Second Edition came out is when things in D&D really started jelling into a discernible community. The 2E rules were light on crunch and heavy on fluff. This made it difficult for people who might be "rules lawyers" or "power gamers" to gain much edge at the table, while those who focused heavily on the RP aspects found it easy. I can recall many a time when some wannabe actor would completely dominate the game by insisting on lengthy role-playing sequences. Frequently you never got to the action. Many people will still vehemently claim this is the "right" way to play the game, and they too are missing the point, i.e. when one person is hogging up all the fun, no one else is having any.
When 3E came out, it was much heavier on crunch and the "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" were suddenly empowered more than they ever had been. As a result, some of them started doing the table dominance I had only previously witnessed from the heavy RPers.
What this shows is that it doesn't matter what someone's playstyle is. Anyone can suck all of the fun out of the table by dominating it. And it is people that do this that are the problem that needs to be dealt with, not the playstyle.
You make an excellent point. While I'm not a 'wannabe actor' (more or a wannabe story teller), I suspect I sometimes dominate a table with my RPing antics (even while playing D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder). I try hard not to do this (and I am pretty sure I should try even harder). The one thing I will say in my defense is that sometimes PFS can be so 'roleplay-lite' that I feel like a starving man in a Soviet-era Russian food line.
So while I agree with the OP's sentiment, I disagree with him lumping rules lawyers, power gamers and jerks all into the same category. The category should simply be "jerk."
We're gamers, we like to classify/give types to things, even our jerks?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I'm not taking a TPK from a GM who is not following RAW to a reasonable degree. GM's who are willfully ignorant of PFS dev rulings and Pathfinder RAW in general are the real jerks to me. They have nothing at stake in the scenario.
I'll be the bad guy. I'll be the rules lawyer. Although rather than making OP PCs, I'm usually protecting players from overreaching GMs.
|
|
Sorry, I'm not taking a TPK from a GM who is not following RAW to a reasonable degree. GM's who are willfully ignorant of PFS dev rulings and Pathfinder RAW in general are the real jerks to me. They have nothing at stake in the scenario.
I'll be the bad guy. I'll be the rules lawyer. Although rather than making OP PCs, I'm usually protecting players from overreaching GMs.
We want you on that wall? We need you on that wall?
On a more serious note, you must either have some terrible GMs in your area or are extremely lawful neutral in your (player not character) alignment. I play about 4 to 5 times much as I GM in my area and I can tell you I have BY FAR the most aggravation (at least 10X) with players at tables I'm playing at than from GM's I play under or players I GM for. And, tbh, the vast majority of these players are those that want to quibble about the rules ad nauseum, offer unsolicited 'across the room rules clarifications' to other tables, and just people that can't seem to remember they're not on the GM side of the screen at that particular table. They suck the fun out of my gaming milkshake. They suck it dry.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem is players who suck the fun away from other players by either hogging play time with pointless arguments or dominating the table with power builds so that the other players can't shine.Ummm, it sounds like you are using a lot of words to express what most people express by saying/typing, "rules lawyers" or "power gamers" ... Perhaps I am missing the nuance. ;-)
I think what he's getting at is that many people use the terms "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" to include (and to deride) players who aren't actually being disruptive.
I've seen people verbally assaulted for being "power gamers" because of what's written on their sheet, regardless of how they use it at the table—although you and the OP seem to only refer to players who use their PCs to be disruptive, it's more commonly an attack against "anyone who builds a more powerful PC than I did".
I've seen people verbally assaulted for being "rules lawyers" just for posting a thread asking whether their GM's ruling (that they politely accepted during the game) was correct or not. Again, it's often a term used to attack someone for being interested in rules, even if that interest isn't disruptive to the game.
Often, those who use the terms "rules lawyer" and/or "power gamer" seem (or even outright declare) to believe that there's no such thing as using rules and power responsibly, that everyone who invests in those skills is being disruptive.
So when someone posts a thread expressing frustration with "power gamers and rules lawyers", are they only talking about people who use rules and power to disrupt the game? Or are they the next in the neverending line of people who indiscriminately attack anyone who exercises rules proficiency and system mastery no matter how responsibly they do so?
That, I think, is where trollbill is coming from. But of course, I'm not him. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry, I'm not taking a TPK from a GM who is not following RAW to a reasonable degree. GM's who are willfully ignorant of PFS dev rulings and Pathfinder RAW in general are the real jerks to me. They have nothing at stake in the scenario.
I'll be the bad guy. I'll be the rules lawyer. Although rather than making OP PCs, I'm usually protecting players from overreaching GMs.
We want you on that wall? We need you on that wall?
On a more serious note, you must either have some terrible GMs in your area or are extremely lawful neutral in your (player not character) alignment. I play about 4 to 5 times much as I GM in my area and I can tell you I have BY FAR the most aggravation (at least 10X) with players at tables I'm playing at than from GM's I play under or players I GM for. And, tbh, the vast majority of these players are those that want to quibble about the rules ad nauseum, offer unsolicited 'across the room rules clarifications' to other tables, and just people that can't seem to remember they're not on the GM side of the screen at that particular table. They suck the fun out of my gaming milkshake. They suck it dry.
Huh. Interesting.
You seem shocked to the point of disbelief that he could have had such experiences with GMs as to lead to his statements, then one of the things you mention running into all the time ("across the room rules clarifications") is something I've never encountered in my life.Regions are regions, I suppose.
|
|
Sorry, I'm not taking a TPK from a GM who is not following RAW to a reasonable degree. GM's who are willfully ignorant of PFS dev rulings and Pathfinder RAW in general are the real jerks to me. They have nothing at stake in the scenario.
I'll be the bad guy. I'll be the rules lawyer. Although rather than making OP PCs, I'm usually protecting players from overreaching GMs.
I think maybe you're taking this thread the wrong way.
What I've been trying to say boils down to a simple learn to pick your battles...
i.e. Gm makes a horrible ruling that results in a tpk... good battle to choose -- with having the information available to show the GM the correct interpretation of the rule simply telling the Gm "you're wrong" isn't going to go over well.. but hey I don't think that's how it works, my interpretation is X... here in the book is where I'm getting my information.. goes a lot further
Gm decides to add flavor and teaks how alchemist fire works -- good battle to NOT choose as in the end it doesn't matter
|
|
I guess I would really like to keep the trolling down and keep this as a discussion. I made the first mistake of not clarifying my definition of "rules lawyers" and "power-gamers". That has since been defined and we will now just call them "jerks". If anyone is not okay with that just say so without blasting away please. I see a lot of "jerks" do what I wrote earlier"
Too often we look for wording where there is none or put emphasis on a word to get away with what we want to do. We do this in game and in life to try and get the most benefit for "me". We tend to dismiss the spirit of the rule. We try to morph something into what it is not. I know we all do this to some extent. There are a lot more "creative" players then there are developers. Just to let you know the developers miss some things once and awhile.
Yes there are some gaps in the rules as said earlier and we do need to discuss them. But we should be responsible with our dialog with each other and how we use those gaps at the table. Obviously, if you find something, you should research it. If there is no definitive answer from a paid campaign person, then go to your store coordinator on his/her ruling as they see it. If you are the coordinator, then go to your VL/VC. If you are a VO, go to other VO's. If you are Mike Brock, just decide for yourself and post it. But all that should be done before you apply it to your character, that way there will be no confusion. Same applies to items.
If you want to be a "jerk" (please use above definition of jerk) that is your privilege. It is also the right of the GM to tell you to leave the table. So please be a responsible "jerk".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The distinction is important because of how you deal with and recognize them.
Rules lawyer: Are they pointing out rules or are they arguing them to their own advantage? There is a vast, vast difference between the two.
If someone is arguing unclear, contradictory, or a munchkiny interpretation of the raw specifically for their own advantage(hey, the druids animal companion has the attack trick, I command him to attack his own druid!, darkness rules, when you can and can't use diplomacy) then you whap them with the newspaper, tell them to take it to the forums and continue.
If someone generally has a point (hey, combat reflexes lets me whack that guy even when I'm flat footed, The DC to get through my space is 5 higher, that weapon the inquisi activated bane on is now +3 so there's no DR)I'd either listen to them or at worst ask them to hold off on the longer arguments till after the game unless its about to get someone killed.
Power gamers are tricker. There's no real definition for when optimization goes over into game breaking. Spell casters and archers can do it without even breathing hard. Its hard to blame someone for making what they consider just a good character.
|
|
We tend to dismiss the spirit of the rule.
This I agree with. I wish everyone followed the spirit of the rules, it would be more fun for everyone.
People that tend to lawyer up can slow a game down to a crawl, frustrate the GM and players (new and old) leaving several dissatisfied customers. If you have an issue, hold it till after the scenario unless it is something that the GM is doing wrong that results in a player death.
I want to play by the rules whether I’m GMing or a player. As long as the dispute takes no time (the player can look it up), I don’t see the problem.
Of course if it starts making the game unfun, that's a problem.
I personally do not need others to tell me how to play or build my character.
That’s not being a rules lawyer. That’s being an overpowering, opinionated, powergamer. Different problem altogether. No need to complain to the community about this, just tell whoever is bothering you exactly what you just said in this post!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fight the fights that matter. Some players/GM's get so caught up in the rules they confuse the 'rules' for the 'game'.
*Try to have fun - make a conscious effort to add to others enjoyment too.
*Don't be afraid to optimise, don't be afraid not to.
*Don't be afraid to powergame, don't be afraid not to.
*Don't be afraid to roleplay, don't be afraid not to.
*Don't be a jerk, don't be a jerk.
Game derailing or problem players simply don't get invited back, likewise, if I see a GM who's chops I don't like I don't sign on to their table. Even when I have thought the GM was all over the shop and making bad calls (I politely questioned them at the time), I just finished out the session politely without needing to have a fight over it and moved on.