| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, after a discussion with someone else in my gaming group, I have to ask the question above. For a bit of context, I'm the Rules lawyer in question, and I'm the only one in my group who knew how charging worked to start. Given how the combats in our game were going, I chose to try helping out by explaining certain things the players could and could not do in combat, and keeping track of things like flanking, etc...
It's just frustrating to try to help things run smoothly (also helped the DM with behind the scenes mechanical stuff as well), and only be told I'm playing the game wrong. I'm not even kidding, apparently trying to see if players could be getting more out of simple things like Two-handing their long sword is just getting in the way. I was already told that I should feel free to help with mechanical bits like character and tactical advice.
As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it depends on who your playing with. Some people will take the advice you suggested above and roll with it, other will take one look at it and go "no, I said i wanted to be a child not some weird demon blooded hobet"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
There are young characters in ultimate campaign. You just have to hand-wave the class restriction rule.
Something that helped me out and my rules lawyering was realizing that the rules are whatever the GM says they are. The rules in the CRB are only valid because the GM said they were.
I try to see question directed to me about mechanics (when I am a player) as what is written in the book, not what the rules are.
I also don't call what the GM says "house rules", that helps. Cause really ALL the rules are the "house rules" of the GM, whether or not they resemble what is in the CRB is irrelevant.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, rules lawyering is fine if not done during the middle of play (where it's usually disruptive). However, there's a difference between it being fine and expecting people to do as you say in regards to the rules.
Whatever advice you give, you're gonna need to be aware that some people simply don't care about optimization or making things work perfectly mechanically, caring more about the details of theme or a hundred other things. Or disagree with you about how and how well things work. You need to learn to take 'No' for an answer without becoming frustrated if you want to do this regularly.
And obviously need to know that what the GM says generally trumps the RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, after a discussion with someone else in my gaming group, I have to ask the question above. For a bit of context, I'm the Rules lawyer in question, and I'm the only one in my group who knew how charging worked to start. Given how the combats in our game were going, I chose to try helping out by explaining certain things the players could and could not do in combat, and keeping track of things like flanking, etc...
It's just frustrating to try to help things run smoothly (also helped the DM with behind the scenes mechanical stuff as well), and only be told I'm playing the game wrong. I'm not even kidding, apparently trying to see if players could be getting more out of simple things like Two-handing their long sword is just getting in the way. I was already told that I should feel free to help with mechanical bits like character and tactical advice.As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
I think it depends on your definition of rules lawyering. With that said not too many things are inherently bad, but taken to extremes many things are bad.
If you are just offering advice, that is not bad. However don't feel bad if it is not taken or if it is ignored. If you are proven to be correct later do not say "I told you so" no matter how tempting it might be.
PS: Don't keep repeating the advice either. By making the attempt to inform them you have done enough. From there it is up to them.
As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
There are young characters in ultimate campaign. You just have to hand-wave the class restriction rule.
Something that helped me out and my rules lawyering was realizing that the rules are whatever the GM says they are. The rules in the CRB are only valid because the GM said they were.
I try to see question directed to me about mechanics (when I am a player) as what is written in the book, not what the rules are.
I also don't call what the GM says "house rules", that helps. Cause really ALL the rules are the "house rules" of the GM, whether or not they resemble what is in the CRB is irrelevant.
The GM said, in essence "go to town, I want to learn too." As for the character, when the player explained why they wanted to play that, the reasoning was that they thought it was amusing to think of a small person that was really strong and had magical powers. This was just an example though, I'm mostly wondering about the question in the title.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people like it and some people dont, so I dont think it's inherently bad.
Personally, I find rules lawyers great since I have no interest in wading through the PF rules trying to work out how they work and what the potential points of confusion are, whereas there are always a bunch of helpful people here who can clear it up (even if the thread does sometimes end up derailing into two rules lawyers sniping at each other about who's right :p).
Having said that, our group is very lax with the rules. I think it would bug us at the table if someone kept interrupting with "that's not how it works" once it was clear that that's how we did it. We very much have a "they're not rules, they're guidelines" approach and I could imagine that being somewhat grating or baffling to a rules lawyer. We'd find it helpful to be told what was supposed to happen but that wouldnt necessarily mean that we'd change to doing it correctly.
FWIW, I dont really consider helping build a character as rules lawyering. That wouldnt be much use to me, since I'm really not interested in having a "build" but much prefer just developing the character as I go. I dont think ongoing advice would bother me though - I just wouldnt get much out of it.
The GM said, in essence "go to town, I want to learn too." As for the character, when the player explained why they wanted to play that, the reasoning was that they thought it was amusing to think of a small person that was really strong and had magical powers. This was just an example though, I'm mostly wondering about the question in the title.As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
There are young characters in ultimate campaign. You just have to hand-wave the class restriction rule.
Something that helped me out and my rules lawyering was realizing that the rules are whatever the GM says they are. The rules in the CRB are only valid because the GM said they were.
I try to see question directed to me about mechanics (when I am a player) as what is written in the book, not what the rules are.
I also don't call what the GM says "house rules", that helps. Cause really ALL the rules are the "house rules" of the GM, whether or not they resemble what is in the CRB is irrelevant.
There is a difference between telling people what the mechanics are and being an authority on the rules.
Avoid the latter. Don't mistake your GM wanting to learn the mechanics with your GM wanting to learn the rules. The rules are what he says they are. If you explain the mechanics and he likes them, then they are rules.
Having said that, our group is very lax with the rules. I think it would bug us at the table if someone kept interrupting with "that's not how it works" once it was clear that that's how we did it.
This is also very important. Find a group that fit your(not directed at anyone) playstyle.
If a GM said they are loose with the rules I would ask for examples or maybe even just play a few sessions. Then I would decide if they were too loose with the rules. Some people however try to convert the group to their style of play, which is not a good thing to do.
The GM said, in essence "go to town, I want to learn too." As for the character, when the player explained why they wanted to play that, the reasoning was that they thought it was amusing to think of a small person that was really strong and had magical powers. This was just an example though, I'm mostly wondering about the question in the title.As an example, one of them wanted to build a 12 or so year old Bloodrager girl for a future campaign. I offered a way to get the same effect (small character that's really strong and has magic) that could be reasonably allowed with out weird templates like the young template getting in the way. I went to these very boards to see if my idea would help (Halfling-based Demon-blooded Tiefling), and it seemed reasonable enough to offer. The idea was ignored for no apparent reason.
So, am I just not getting what I am doing wrong? I feel like I should just stop, but I don't think I'm really doing anything wrong. Does anyone less invested in this have any advice on how to proceed?
There are young characters in ultimate campaign. You just have to hand-wave the class restriction rule.
Something that helped me out and my rules lawyering was realizing that the rules are whatever the GM says they are. The rules in the CRB are only valid because the GM said they were.
I try to see question directed to me about mechanics (when I am a player) as what is written in the book, not what the rules are.
I also don't call what the GM says "house rules", that helps. Cause really ALL the rules are the "house rules" of the GM, whether or not they resemble what is in the CRB is irrelevant.
There is a difference between telling people what the mechanics are and being an authority on the rules.
Avoid the latter. Don't mistake your GM wanting to learn the mechanics with your GM wanting to learn the rules. The rules are what he says they are. If you explain the...
This is easily solved by a GM saying "I don't always follow the book", or handing out houserules.
Once that is done the player should be able to tell when the a GM is ignoring a rule and when he is trying to use the correct mechanic. Of course some people don't catch on to such things so easily so the GM may have to just say "I know". However that should end it.
The problem is that there is sometimes a disconnect between what the GM wants and what the player thinks they want and we(GM's) can even forget rules we know or forget about an ongoing affect in a game. If a player ask me about ___, I will just say "I know". However sometimes I might forget or not notice something.
To stop my rambling I will say this---> Communication about the type of game you want to play solves a lot of problems before they start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, being a "Rules Lawyer" means being the worst kind of munchkin and trying to find every loophole in the rules. When I GM, since I know how to do just that, I deter other players from doing that by beating them at their own game (they usually consent to sticking to the intention of rules without me having to fairly obliterate their characters, though I've had a few hard cases).
What you're doing isn't what I'd call being a "rules lawyer"; more being a "rules advocate", if I had to give it a term - you know the rules, but don't seem to abuse them, and rather try to stick as hard to them based on their intent, rather than the letter, as possible.
Personally, something like having a super-strong kid is fine. It's a little weird that there are class restrictions based on age - there are plenty of examples in media where characters of absurdly-young ages are odd classes. I would hope, however, that a young character would incur the penalties as laid out by old and young characters.
This is easily solved by a GM saying "I don't always follow the book", or handing out houserules.
Once that is done the player should be able to tell when the a GM is ignoring a rule and when he is trying to use the correct mechanic.
Another issue is assuming your reading of the mechanic is the correct one. This is avoided by recognizing that only the GM can determine what the correct mechanic is.
Also telling your GM he/she is ignoring rules is extra annoying. As a GM I don't really consider anything outside of the PRD or ultimate Psionics to be rule books, so if a player tries to tell me I am ignoring a rule from a book I don't even recognize as a rule book (because of things like sacred geometry basically just telling me that none of that stuff goes through any balance scrutiny), I might just be a bit miffed.
This is easily solved by a GM saying "I don't always follow the book", or handing out houserules.
Once that is done the player should be able to tell when the a GM is ignoring a rule and when he is trying to use the correct mechanic.
Another issue is assuming your reading of the mechanic is the correct one. This is avoided by recognizing that only the GM can determine what the correct mechanic is.
Also telling your GM he/she is ignoring rules is extra annoying. As a GM I don't really consider anything outside of the PRD or ultimate Psionics to be rule books, so if a player tries to tell me I am ignoring a rule from a book I don't even recognize as a rule book (because of things like sacred geometry basically just telling me that none of that stuff goes through any balance scrutiny), I might just be a bit miffed.
Most rules lawyers are assumed to be good at the rules, and it is possible to point something out without being a jerk about it.
If his attitude is "What is wrong with you? That rule is soooo obvious....", then getting uninviting him should be an option.
If sacred geometry is that silly feat that was noticed on the boards recently then that does not even count since it is a splat book that does not have a core rule in it.
Just to be clear and keep things simple we should assume no corner cases, such as saying "well 3 party company ____ says...".
|
I sometimes bump up against this too. I'm pretty good at rules, and I'm interested in rules, which helps me get good at them.
If someone quotes a rule, but quotes it wrongly, I have a hard time restraining myself from pointing it out. "You know, actually..."
I don't really mind house rules, as long as they're not too idiotic, and as long as they're used consistently. I just wanna know what the rules are, house or not, so I know what I can and can't do, and how good my odds are.
I try hard (unfortunately not always succeeding equally well) to present myself as a resource. If you wonder about a rule, ask me, I'll probably know how (and why) it works or know where it's written down. But on a bad day that can sound a lot like I'm constantly correcting people.
It also cuts both ways; if a rule is being incorrectly applied to the PCs advantage, I'll also feel compelled to mention it. I don't really mind if the GM lets it go; it's always nice to get a break. But I'd feel dishonest if I didn't say it.
Agreeing with (mostly) everybody her: don't be a dick about it, but it's fine helping out.
In my group I am the rules lawyer (or rules advocate if you like) and I usually keep my tablet open on the ogc ready to search something if needed
("ok he's prone ... wait ... what does that do? -Lemme check *typetypetype* found it! it means: ...")
And sometimes I've had to ask my gm about something or gently offer a correction either to avoid Silly(TM) or just as a clarification for my own sake.
(examples include asking if maybe my paladin wasn't cursed instead of diseased -since he was immune to sicknesses - and we had already started roleplaying a great quest to save him before he turned into a monster which I was enjoying quite a bit. I also had to gently show him the rules for mithral when he was about to hand me a half plate with NO skill check penalties and max dex INFINITY, -it wouldn't have been fair otherwise.)
but in general yeah; it's cool that you want to help out or offer advice, but do discussions after the game and always be aware who is the gm. (of course if your gm is CrAYzeeee, then having a nice and diplomatic discussion with the whole group participating and nailing down "just what kinda game _Are_ we playing here?!!" can be smart)
I don't really mind house rules, as long as they're not too idiotic, and as long as they're used consistently. I just wanna know what the rules are, house or not, so I know what I can and can't do, and how good my odds are.
I find that's the most important thing about the rules, and the main reason I generally prefer to stick close-ish to the rulebook unless the house rules are written down and handed out pre-game or it's a weird corner case. If the GM is prone to making lots of off-the-cuff rulings you can easily end up in a situation where you don't know what the rules are. Which is especially bad in a build-intensive game like Pathfinder, where you could easily sink a lot of resources into getting a feat chain, only to have it house-ruled into uselessness.
|
|
Another issue is assuming your reading of the mechanic is the correct one. This is avoided by recognizing that only the GM can determine what the correct mechanic is.This is easily solved by a GM saying "I don't always follow the book", or handing out houserules.
Once that is done the player should be able to tell when the a GM is ignoring a rule and when he is trying to use the correct mechanic.
The only thing more annoying than a GM not knowing the rules (and I am not talking interpretation or corner case here) is a GM insisting that his incorrect take on the rule is the way to go.
Also telling your GM he/she is ignoring rules is extra annoying. As a GM I don't really consider anything outside of the PRD or ultimate Psionics to be rule books, so if a player tries to tell me I am ignoring a rule from a book I don't even recognize as a rule book (because of things like sacred geometry basically just telling me that none of that stuff goes through any balance scrutiny), I might just be a bit miffed.
Well, if the player knows beforehand which limits the GM puts on the game, it is far easier to avoid this and to correct the player if need be.
Rules lawyers are great when they are helpful. The problem comes when they treat the rules as though set in stone.
|
|
Some folks want to learn on their own. Its really cool to build a character and sometimes you dont want people butting in on that. Your help might be ignored because exploring the system and finding out for their selves might be part of the fun for them.
Sometimes if you are much higher on the system mastery scale than the others you may have to play down. I find it best to offer support when its asked for vs. anytime the opportunity rises. If the GM and players are way off base and the game stops being fun you may have to excuse yourself. There is a line between valuable resource and rules lawyer try to walk that line if the group is really important to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the input everybody! I think what I need to do most is to try to keep the rules advocating to before, after, and between sessions. I'll give that a shot later today when we meet for a game and I'll post back here on how it goes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm often called a Lawful Good Rules Lawyer. The main thing is just accept that the GM has the final call and not argue over it.
I go "Actually, (rule)."
GM goes "This is how it works now."
I go "Okay."
And we're done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a rules lawyer isn't good or bad, it's in what way you are a rules lawyer.
Giving advice when it is desired, and having the patience to accept that the advice does not have to be taken is examples of good rules lawyering.
Dictating to the GM how a game should be run (particularly when the session is to your disadvantage), insulting other players for sub-optimal builds, or slowing down game play by debating a very minor rule clarification are examples of a bad rules lawyer.
Eh, I can't say it's inherently bad, But then, that's what I am. Though I only tend to pipe up when I know the rule is wrong. Hell, I ruled myself right into death. I kept wanting to know how long it would take me to heal from fifty damage, (don't think we had a healer in the party) This led me to the massive damage rule, mentioned it, died. My group is of the opinion I was purposely trying to die.
I'm often called a Lawful Good Rules Lawyer. The main thing is just accept that the GM has the final call and not argue over it.
I go "Actually, (rule)."
GM goes "This is how it works now."
I go "Okay."
And we're done.
That's how I do things to. The only time I have ever had an extended mid-session rules argument with a GM was when the GM made an on-the-spot that utterly screwed over another player (If anyone's curious, it was that sneak attack doesn't work on flanked or flat-footed opponents, only unaware ones).
Holy crap. That literally makes any sneak attack class worthless.That's how I do things to. The only time I have ever had an extended mid-session rules argument with a GM was when the GM made an on-the-spot that utterly screwed over another player (If anyone's curious, it was that sneak attack doesn't work on flanked or flat-footed opponents, only unaware ones).I'm often called a Lawful Good Rules Lawyer. The main thing is just accept that the GM has the final call and not argue over it.
I go "Actually, (rule)."
GM goes "This is how it works now."
I go "Okay."
And we're done.
Was pretty much what I tried to tell the GM. And why I don't play with him anymore.
"But it's called SNEAK Attack! He can't do that an enemy that knows he's there!"
Yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that "rules lawyer" is a negatively loaded word for many people, with some cross-over to "munchkin" or "power gamer". To quote Paizo's description in the game mastery guide:
All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it’s in his favor.
It's entirely possible to be knowledgeable and helpful with the rules without being a rules lawyer, and having such a player at a table can be a great help both to the GM and to the other players. I prefer to call them "rule gurus" ;)
I think it's not inherently bad, but it can be if you are too jerk.
Just watch your game and fill a list of things that you want to say at the GM about the rules. AFTER the session talk about your list with him and with other players.
It's worth noting that "rules lawyer" is a negatively loaded word for many people, with some cross-over to "munchkin" or "power gamer". To quote Paizo's description in the game mastery guide:
All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it’s in his favor.It's entirely possible to be knowledgeable and helpful with the rules without being a rules lawyer, and having such a player at a table can be a great help both to the GM and to the other players. I prefer to call them "rule gurus" ;)Yeah, that's pretty much my take as well. If you're trying to twist the letter of the rules in your favor, you're a rules lawyer.
If you know the rules well and try to help the game run smoothly, you're not. I've definitely been in games where one player knew the rules better than even the GM and the GM would turn to him for how some things worked. I've even been that player on occasion.
So, it seems like the question is really an issue of "define your terms."
Some folks define a rules lawyer as "Guy who knows all the technical aspects of the rules really well" while some define it as "Guy who constantly tries to twist the rules to his advantage." Rather hard to discuss whether it's bad to be a rules lawyer when we can't agree what a rules lawyer is.
It's worth noting that "rules lawyer" is a negatively loaded word for many people, with some cross-over to "munchkin" or "power gamer". To quote Paizo's description in the game mastery guide:
All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it’s in his favor.It's entirely possible to be knowledgeable and helpful with the rules without being a rules lawyer, and having such a player at a table can be a great help both to the GM and to the other players. I prefer to call them "rule gurus" ;)Yeah, that's pretty much my take as well. If you're trying to twist the letter of the rules in your favor, you're a rules lawyer.
If you know the rules well and try to help the game run smoothly, you're not. I've definitely been in games where one player knew the rules better than even the GM and the GM would turn to him for how some things worked. I've even been that player on occasion.
So, it seems like the question is really an issue of "define your terms."
Some folks define a rules lawyer as "Guy who knows all the technical aspects of the rules really well" while some define it as "Guy who constantly tries to twist the rules to his advantage." Rather hard to discuss whether it's bad to be a rules lawyer when we can't agree what a rules lawyer is.
It is always one, but some while knowing the rules will bring up rules that RAW are silly but advantageous.
Like Shield Master is it Rules Lawyer to say it ignores all penalties. But the dude is right.
DM might (house)rule otherwise, but it says what it says.
It's worth noting that "rules lawyer" is a negatively loaded word for many people, with some cross-over to "munchkin" or "power gamer". To quote Paizo's description in the game mastery guide:
All players like to know that there are universal rules to level the playing field, but the rules lawyer takes it a step farther. He knows every obscure rule, and insists that each one work exactly as written—especially if it’s in his favor.It's entirely possible to be knowledgeable and helpful with the rules without being a rules lawyer, and having such a player at a table can be a great help both to the GM and to the other players. I prefer to call them "rule gurus" ;)Yeah, that's pretty much my take as well. If you're trying to twist the letter of the rules in your favor, you're a rules lawyer.
If you know the rules well and try to help the game run smoothly, you're not. I've definitely been in games where one player knew the rules better than even the GM and the GM would turn to him for how some things worked. I've even been that player on occasion.
So, it seems like the question is really an issue of "define your terms."
Some folks define a rules lawyer as "Guy who knows all the technical aspects of the rules really well" while some define it as "Guy who constantly tries to twist the rules to his advantage." Rather hard to discuss whether it's bad to be a rules lawyer when we can't agree what a rules lawyer is.
commonly arguments break down because they never set down the definitions of what they are arguing. like I've had people argue that people using higher tier stuff in MP games was cheating because they were leveraging unfair advantage the player had.
like whats-his-face-someone said above, sounds more like being a Rules Advocate (can we make this an official thing now?) vs a Rules Lawyer.
Rules Lawyers to me, because I've gamed with many who've done this and called themselves rules lawyers, are those jerks who always insist that RAW is right... Regardless of the situation. Then, they get into arguments with the GM over it when the GM calls down Rule 0 and states "this is how it works now". Even a "I'll consider it and may change it after this session" is ignored for "But this is how it states, this is how it should be run!" Still, I'll take these guys over a GM who makes and changes house rules on the fly without letting anyone know, while going back on what he had said two hours earlier about how some custom item works, and still saying "I'm playing Pathfinder even if you guys don't want to"... *eye twitch*
Of course, like many, most of them were only doing it when it was advantageous for them or the party (somehow, I took satisfaction from their reactions when I helped out the DM by citing some monster rule he had forgotten, can't remember what now, and made the boss encounter go from cake-walk to challenging)...
Personally, I don't think anyone minds someone who can toss out a rule that might help the game run smoother... As long as they accept that the GM states the rules are what the rules are. If they're seriously concerned, talk to the GM in between sessions, don't argue the point mid-battle.
Me? I'd much prefer the rules advocate than the rules lawyer. I know I don't know all the obscure out there rules, so I'll let someone play the RA, on the above conditions. Either I'll take the advice, or I won't, but I'll review the rule after the game. Deal with it. Most players don't seem to mind since it keeps the game running smoothly.
Soo... Your kinda rules lawyer schtick, not all that bad. Seems like you need a bit of help differentiating between the game mechanics, and a character concept, in your example. If you're so upset by it, I'd say talk to the GM about it after the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll weigh in, as my party's Rules "Advocate", as the term seems to be (I've used Rules Librarian, but same dif). How citing rules comes across really depends on how you present it, how consistently you do it, and how receptive you group is to it.
As people have said, being diplomatic is key to giving rules advice. As with any other kind of advice, if you make other people defensive, they'll be less likely to listen of you, regardless of whether you're right or not. Try not to be authoritarian and commanding - often, the best way to bring up something is too go "Are you sure that's how it works? I thought it was..."
That way, not only do you ask from a position of wanting clarification, not laying down an order, you protect yourself from a backlash if you're actually wrong - nothing worse than being so sure you're willing to bet anything, only end up being wrong. It seriously damages your credibility, and makes it harder for you to explain things when you are right - after all, you got that one wrong. First impressions are very important.
I'd say the key difference between a lawyer and an advocate is that an advocate is willing to correct things that would otherwise be in his, or his party's favor. If the GM forgets to full attack with a creature, or fails to notice that an ally will provoke from a reach weapon, or what have you, and you remind him, that instantly elevate you in his eyes. It shows that you're doing this out of a sense of fair play, not trying to squeeze every advantage out of every opportunity.
Finally, despite being on your best behavior, some GMs just aren't welcoming to a rules advocate. Whether from a distaste for having to be tied to a book, or not liking someone knowing more than them at the table, wanting a focus on narrative while discarding consistency in the process, or what have you, sometime it just won't work. I'm not saying these types of playstyles are wrong, merely that they don't have a reason for not sweating the rules details, and that I, personally, would probably not enjoy myself in such a group. Reading your group is critical, and don't push too far - rules disputes are best solved by each side giving their argument, and a swift decision being made. Now, I play online, so I admit I have a bit of a bias - rules are easily available for anyone to check at a moment's notice. In a live game, make your case, give a page citation if you can quickly, and if you get ruled against, bring it up later.
I find it's very important to know the limits of both the comprehensiveness of the rules, and your own knowledge about them. Be transparent when the rules are unclear, give your opinion on how you would rule, and leave it up to the GM. Try to keep your familiarity of the rules in mind; your group will be more forgiving if you get something wrong about scribing spells into spellbooks if you mention you're not certain. Conversely, if you're extra familiar with something, press for the GM to reread his notes to make sure they are accurate. In a game I play in, we ran into ghouls. When a knowledge check was rolled, it was mentioned that there were no special defensive abilities. I pressured him to double check, because I had run ghoul in a campaign once, and remembered they had channel resistance. He checked, and sure enough, they had it.
One last thing to remember is that sometimes, things do break the rules in unique ways. It you run into a choker, I'm sure you'd be very surprised when it runs up to you, then full-attacks. A situation like this shows why it's so important to approach this from a standpoint clarification. Asking the GM "Really? Are you sure it can do that?" should be your first recourse. In this scenario, it'd be exactly right. He might tell you how it could do that after the session, telling you that choker's have a special ability that gives them an extra move action. But if you reacted going "Hey, you can't do that. You can't full attack and move in the same turn", then the difference between unknown monster ability and rule mistake become blurred.
Yeah, my group, continued to use the wrong rule multiple times, in multiple different games where I corrected the GM each time. This rule was f~*#ed up in such a way as to make the entire combat harder than it was meant to be. My group's reaction. "Shut up we're playing game" Recently one of them actually took the time to read the rule. "Hey guys guess what I just found out." o_0
Rules Lawyering is inherently bad. The entire concept is that the player is litigious at the table and arguing his case on how the game should play out, which is the GMs job, not the players.
Most Rules Lawyers that I've played with aren't even very knowledgeable about the rules and build their characters on these 'too good to be true' items, feats, abilities, et cetera. They are too good to be true in reality as the player didn't read the rules carefully or were creating a plausible but deliberate misreading of the rules to be able to make the argument at the table so they can get their way regardless of what the rules actually say.
The primary component of rules lawyering is creating an argument that will get the player their way and result in 'victory' for them at the table via some metagame construct regardless of any other consideration (such as being a correct reading of the rules, or if a particular rule makes any sense, or is an obvious typo, et cetera).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules Lawyering is inherently bad. The entire concept is that the player is litigious at the table and arguing his case on how the game should play out, which is the GMs job, not the players.
Most Rules Lawyers that I've played with aren't even very knowledgeable about the rules and build their characters on these 'too good to be true' items, feats, abilities, et cetera. They are too good to be true in reality as the player didn't read the rules carefully or were creating a plausible but deliberate misreading of the rules to be able to make the argument at the table so they can get their way regardless of what the rules actually say.
The primary component of rules lawyering is creating an argument that will get the player their way and result in 'victory' for them at the table via some metagame construct regardless of any other consideration (such as being a correct reading of the rules, or if a particular rule makes any sense, or is an obvious typo, et cetera).
B*&%!#~%! I've had the GM KILLING THE PARTY not because of house rules, but his own faulty memory about how combat worked. Rules Lawyering is not inherently bad, it's being an a++@&+* that's the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules Lawyering is inherently bad. The entire concept is that the player is litigious at the table and arguing his case on how the game should play out, which is the GMs job, not the players.
Most Rules Lawyers that I've played with aren't even very knowledgeable about the rules and build their characters on these 'too good to be true' items, feats, abilities, et cetera. They are too good to be true in reality as the player didn't read the rules carefully or were creating a plausible but deliberate misreading of the rules to be able to make the argument at the table so they can get their way regardless of what the rules actually say.
The primary component of rules lawyering is creating an argument that will get the player their way and result in 'victory' for them at the table via some metagame construct regardless of any other consideration (such as being a correct reading of the rules, or if a particular rule makes any sense, or is an obvious typo, et cetera).
That is incorrect. Your experience is your experience. Those that cheat are not rules lawyers. They are cheaters. The two are not synonamous, and there is nothing wrong with speaking up if a GM makes a mistake. It is a problem if the player is a jerk about it. It is very possible to speak up and not be a jerk. When I correct the GM it is done even if I suffer for it in game. Yes I also GM, and I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong.
It is NOT inherently bad. You just have players that want to have their way it seems. That can be handled with a better screening process.
Again folks, there is a difference between being a rules lawyer and being knowledgeable about the rules. Please consider the definitions posted earlier in the thread. :)
A discussion about whether or not rules lawyering is bad is focused on the legalistic definition of rules lawyering to defend stances...
A discussion about whether or not rules lawyering is bad is focused on the legalistic definition of rules lawyering to defend stances...
Really? I don't see anyone doing that.
What I do see are people trying to agree on the definition of "rules lawyer" so everyone's on the same page.
For example I would not consider what Smashomancer describes in the original post as rules lawyering, so to me the thread title is nonsensical.
Luckily, I've only come across one of these, and he was a nice dude. He had probably about as much system mastery as I do, and since I was the DM and we're both people who pretty much always DM there was that sort of thing going on; we were both so used to being able to throw out something and have it stick that we'd occasionally look at each other and just shrug out an easy compromise. He was also a bit of a "power gamer" (not in a bad way, didn't want to take over the game, just wanted to be as effective as possible) and that started rubbing the group the wrong way.
In his case it was "alternate rules rules-lawyering," trying to get me to bend my own houserules to fit his idea of what the most effective character he could make would be by using alternate systems like piecemeal and called shots that my other players didn't have explicit knowledge of. So simply through system mastery and my typical lenience at the table he began taking over. I wouldn't necessarily count this as the type of rules-lawyering most people think of when they hear the term, but I think it had the same effect: it alienated the other players and turned the session into a verbal encounter between myself, him, and page numbers of books. My other players know enough that they're 100% competent, and they know where to look for items and spells and whatever. In their case, though, they're willing to allow me to shorten and lengthen their leash as long as it makes the story more engaging and they don't feel limited.