Ask a GM [07/15/08]: Handling Rules Lawyers

[Farcaster]

Inquisitor Tremayne asks,

"How do you deal with a player who knows the rules backward and forward and corrects you, the DM/GM, on the mechanics of a game system?"

[cplmac]

Fortunately, I have never had to deal with this problem. However, I would probably ask them if they wanted to DM/GM. Of course, if they answer yes, then i would say that they need to create a campaign and run it. Until then, while I'm running my game, there maybe some bending or changing of a rule here and there. When they run their own campaign, they are of course allowed to do the same if they wish.

Also, I'm not sure about other genres or versions of D&D, but in the forward to the AD&D second edition DMG, one paragraph states, "Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one."

The next paragraph continues as, "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with the question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answeris as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

Just lends more credit to the statement that the DM/GM is the final arbritrator when it comes to decissions being made.

Just read Web's response and wanted to add that I also don't have a problem with being reminded of something that I might have overlooked while being busy with everything that the DM/GM has to do while running the game. Yes, when it gets to be constant and after decissions have been made, then it does become a problem that slows the game down.

There have been a couple of times that the party has presented their arguement about a particular rule interpretation that I did go with, even though it was a change in what had been the previous interpretation. As the DM/GM, you have to be willing to listen to other ideas and be willing to make changes that will enhance the game.

[Webhead]

Rule-lawyering is a tricky problem. To the player, in their mind, they are only doing the game a service by trying to encourage "consistency". Unfortunately, if the act of rules-lawyering is overpowering the GM's ability to maintain the pace of the game and interest of the group, it can be a distraction at best and a fun-wrecker at worst. The player is not the one given the role of adjudicator for the game. That is the responsibility of the GM. It is the GM's duty to decide which rules to follow strictly, which to overlook and which to make up when needed.

Now, as GMs, we've got a lot on our minds. NPCs, statistics, background developments, plots and subplots to weave. GMs forget things too...sometimes even obvious things. While the players should remind the GM of obvious oversights, they need to leave the final decision about a ruling to the GM. If there is concern over a ruling, that concern should be quiety recorded in some way and address at some point outside of the game. It could be before or after a game session, during a snack or bathroom break, via e-mail or phone call at a later date...whatever. But the game should not be burdened with arguements simply because someone doesn't think that a rule is being interpreted correctly or that they are forgetting about special circumstantial modifiers, etc. It is one thing to draw attention to these things, but it is another to stop the flow of the game because of them.

The Star Wars Role Playing Game Second Edition Revised and Expanded corebook gives the following advice and details the following about the role of a Game Master:

"The game is about having fun...the rules are only as important as you think they are. Ignore the rules you don't like and get on with the game. Have fun. Make sure your players have fun. And if it takes throwing out the rulebook to have fun, hey, that's your call. That's why you're in charge of the game..."

"The GM as Referee: Never Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story...Keep the Game Moving Quickly...Use Your Judgement...Interpret the Rules...Be Fair and Impartial...Your Word is Final."

The idea is that the GM should make a rules decision based on what is best for the integrity of the game and the fun of the group. I have no problem with players reminding me on occasion of rules that I've forgotten or overlooked, but when a player takes a "rules-reminder" past the point at which I've already announced a judgement call, that is where the discussion belongs away from the game table, or at least, away from the game.

As S. John Ross once wrote: "The GM is not God. God is one of his little NPCs."

Just kidding... ;)

[grimwell]

The key to handling "Rules Lawyers" is to remember that they are only exhibiting what they enjoy most in the game: Mastery of the system. They enjoy delving into the fundamentals of a design system and exploring the systems in action.

Make them your b#%#
Forgive my attempt at humor there, but a very powerful technique is to co-opt that "Rules Lawyer" into the process of the game. When in doubt, ask them how the rules work. Then, when they cite something just go for it and trust them on the spot.

"OK Bill, Jim wants to jump over the banister and onto the cluster of orc's. That's falling damage due to the fifteen foot drop; but really the orcs are going to break the fall before ten feet are crossed... what kind of roll do you think we should do for success there? If he fails I'll give Jim's character normal falling damage..."

That's all hypothetical, but in a situation like that you are validating a players love of mastering the rules and giving them a chance to exhibit it at the table. Provided they can answer fast "How about a reflex save, and if he makes it a hit roll do pass the falling damage to the orcs?" go with it. If they can't answer fast you need to do something else...

Theorize with them
Before the game, after the game, in emails or any other communication point you have with your rules master validate their love of knowing the rules and talk game theory with them.

"Hey Bill, how well do you think I handled Jim's character jumping on the orcs? I wasn't comfortable waiving his falling damage, but thought that the hit roll agains the orcs to have them take it too worked fast and was a little funny!"

Discuss things that have happened in the campaign and how you handled those rules, and also chat about hypothetical ideas, hidden rules synergies, and whatever else comes up. This reaps two rewards: you are having a great conversation with a friend, and they are being validated for enjoying the game the way they like it.

What if he's lawyering over inconsequential rules?
What if it's Bill citing rules and telling you that you handled the jumping rules incorrectly and cost his character three inches (when he made the jump by two feet)? These inconsequential quips at the table don't help at all, and can get annoying. That's when you table the discussion fast and clearly.

"You could be right Bill; but your character still made the jump and had no negative consequences, so let's talk about it after the game since no characters were impacted. Jim, Bill's character lands next to you and your pile of orcs, who are all starting to stand, what do you do?"

It's important to take the inconsequential rules quips and route them away from the action. If they continue, on trivial points, it's even acceptable to take that rules master aside and just tell them that they are free to take notes and discuss the rules with you after the game; but you are only interested in having them stop the game on a rule if someone's going to die.

What if he's a jerk?
So what do you do when the rules master just does not get it and constantly breaks the flow of the game up over differences in rulings, even when they are trivial? If you tell them you have GM fiat and that they need to stuff it you are killing their joy of the game; but if they can't find an outlet for that joy without killing the joy that others get... ask them to find a new table.

One of the best things about these games for me is that they are flexible. There is no single right way to play any of them and that allows people to focus on the parts they like the most, and then find like minded people to game with. If your rules lawyer can't contain himself enough to enjoy the game in a collaborative sense -- allow them to find a new game. Challenge them to run a game that you can play in. Do something to get them out of your game. Even if they are a friend.

Whatever you do, don't let them kill it for the other people at the table. RPG's are compromise, everyone gives up a little of what they enjoy most such that everyone else gets to enjoy it their way every now and then too. Anyone who can't make that compromise, anyone who runs all over the enjoyment for others, is not welcome in my games.

Reality check
If you remember that your "Rules Lawyer" is actually someone who just gets pleasure from knowing the rules; and find ways to route that enjoyment productively at your game table; you will find that the rules lawyer is actually one of the most content folks in the game. They are playing along, laughing, sharing adventures, and having a good time because you made it possible. Just as you should provide opportunities for the role player to actually role play, the rules lawyer needs opportunities to let their knowledge shine.

Do it right, and the overwhelming majority of them are very happy campers who contribute to the fun at the table. If you find yourself faced with someone in the extreme minority; who uses the rules to kill it for everyone and does not respond to your outreach and instead uses it against you... cut the cord and let them go. It won't be easy when you do it; but your game will be a heck of a lot better without them.

[Anaesthesia]

I suppose I am lucky enough to only have seen 2 rules lawyers, once when I DMed and other when I was a player.

I had played in a group with someone who I'd call a pseudo-rules lawyer and he'd always picked up thinks on variant rules and odd rulings in regards to the monster manuals (it was really irritating). He'd pick up on the weirdest variant rule and say how the DM needed to use that particular variant rule at that second, even if the DM didn't use that rule before he brought it up. We eventually trained him to keep this to himself-unless it was a rule that the DM forgot and then he was free to bring it up at that time.

To sum, use your best judgement, and on occasion, rules lawyers have something useful to add to the game. (And of course read the other posts-they're probably more useful than mine!)

[Farcaster]

Hmm. I've never had that happen to me... *scoff* :biggrin:

Actually, I have just such a player in my current game. And to be honest, most of the time it is a boon. Games like D&D, GURPS and many others can be very complicated and sometimes (some might say often) convoluted. I like to think that I can put together a fairly decent story, but I am not the best "referee," if you will. Having a player in the group that I can turn to and use as a human version of a rpg-wikipedia often speeds things up, and keeps me from having to whip out a rulebook and start looking for XYZ rule.

However, this same type of player can be also detract from the game. In fact, any player, not just the rules-lawyer, might bring the game to a crashing halt when they argue with you over a ruling. It is for this very reason that I have the "Two Minute Rule," in my games. Often, if a player points out a rule that I didn't realize, I'll adjust my ruling. However, sometimes I just don't agree with the player's interpretation or the rule itself. If that happens, I give my players two minutes to argue their case. After two minutes, I make a judgment-call one way or the other and we move on. The one exception I make to the "Two Minute Rule," is if the disputed rule literally means the difference between life or death for the character. If that's so, I'll take the time needed to make sure we get the ruling right.

Having a limit on how long these kinds of rule-disputes can go on goes a long way to keep things moving. And sometimes, even two minutes might be to disruptive to the flow of a scene. If that's the case, don't be afraid to make a ruling and table the discussion for later. Either way, it is a good idea to commit to discussing any rules-disputes after the game and before your next session to get everyone on board as much as possible. Take it offline and figure out exactly how your group is going to handle that situation if it comes up again. If you find that you made a mistake, be ready to admit it just as boldly as you were making the on-the-spot ruling. Sometimes, you're going to be wrong, and that's okay. Just remember that your job as GM isn't to always be right. Your job is to keep the game going and make sure everyone (including yourself) has fun.

[Thoth-Amon]

I pretty much follow the rules. I also realize that i dont know everything for i allow *all* printed source books to be used... that can be easily over 50(I know it's more... just throwing out a number). So, it is understood that one should know ones character and be ready to be questioned. As far as gaming rules are concerned, everyone knows that if one can make a great argument... that i may side with this person over the rules. When Rules-Lawyers see this, and realize that our games dont go exactly by the rules, they have a choice. They either need to relax and enjoy the game or, for if they are the Felix Ungers of the world, realize they wont be happy and need to move on.

Thoth-Amon

[chosenderrick]

It's not a good feeling to have someone always telling you that you are wrong. I think the gamemaster is the ultimate referee. You say what will happen and what will not happen. Have anyone heard of house rules!

Also, on the flip side, the DM/GM should seek to increase his knowledge of the game that is being played.

And better yet, run a game no one knows but the GM and get new players; like me!

[mrken]

Rules lawyers were pretty much the reason I left most game rules behind. Taking what i liked from all these games and coming up with my own homegrown rules I have a very rules lite game that no one really has to focus on the rules so much that they can't RP well. I don't really explain the rules so much as use them to decide the outcome of actions. Players can do pretty mush anything they want with the logical outcome and consequences.

It is so nice to play in a game that so much of the time is not taken up with debates.

[michaeljearley]

Being a bit of a rules-lawyer I'll throw my two coppers in.
I agree with Grimwell and Farcaster. Use us. If we are anal enough to read and remember the books that well, using that knowledge is like getting paid.
Rules manipulations are different however. Varients and such should not be introduced mid-stream. These should be discussed in private with the GM/DM before/after sessions.
Trivial matters are grey areas. Most of the time it depends on just how impactful the ruling was, and just how much of my OCD kicks in.

Even being a rules-lawyer, the story is still key. A good player will bend for story. Maybe the GM/DM wants it to not work for "drama". (although, being a powergamer, I usually try to give the GM extra wiggle room since I know I try to overpower things)

And at the end of the day its about fun. Rules-lawyers like using the rules as stated and/or agree'd upon. Disruption is disruption however, and a good role-player will seek to prevent it.

[Greylond]

For me it depends on a couple of things. If it is minor, like reminding me about a skill or something that I remember quickly then No Problem. If it is something that is going to delay the game then I ask them to not worry about it until after the game. Now, that said there may be a reason why something doesn't work the way they think, in a world of Magic there could be an effect that the PCs simply have no way of knowing. I don't allow arguments at my table. The GM is Always Right(simply because the GM knows things happening in the World that the Players don't).

When in doubt I simply remind the Player that there maybe something happening that they don't know about. Heck, perhaps that is a Great BIG Clue that "something aint right", i.e. Illusion...

On the flip side if I'm a player and the GM makes a call I don't agree with I'll bring up my disagreement and if the GM says that is the ruling then I won't argue about it until after the game time. Rules-lawyering can be fun but it shouldn't interrupt the fun at the whole table...

[Ramzei]

I am a rules lawyer... in the last campaign I played I chose my first and last names. We always left our characters at the GM's house in case one of us couldn't show up (though we could take them with us if we were positive we would be there the following week). One of the rare weeks I didn't take my character home I came back to find "Esquire" written after my name.

That said, I NEVER interrupt game flow with the only exception being someone dying. I always talk to the GM in private during a break or after the session. He did respect that as well as on-the-fly help on rare occasions. If you are a rules lawyer reading this... if you don't know something, don't make it up. There were a few instances where I didn't know the answer but was able to tell the GM what source to use. Or I would race him to find it in my "session library".

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

I feel (since I am the one who posed the question) that Grimwell is spot on.

Being a rules-lawyer myself it has only been recently that I have noticed how disruptive it can be to the game so I have been making a conscious effort not to be so outspoken.

I see it as a boon to the game most of the time. I believe fair is fair for all since all of us at the table have unspokenly agreed to abide by the RAW and the GM/DM's house rules. So I feel it is my fair duty to point out flaws in whatever circumstance should arise.

However, I will leave any GM/DM adhocing up to the GM/DM, those tend to be judgement calls that are not covered by the rules therefore it is not my place to question the GM/DM.

Plus I REALLY enjoy strategy and tactics and knowing and bending the rules to gain the best tactical advantage is something I enjoy immensely!

[agoraderek]

i have a simple rule: if you want to argue a rule, wait until the break.

i also have another rule: (screw) the book, meaning this: i'm about flow, no rule is going to interrupt said flow, and, as i wind up winging it a lot (my players couldn't follow a script if their eternal souls depended on it), i don't want my mojo broken by a rules "discussion".

luckily, my group doesn't care about mechanics, just about having fun. if i allow someone to join my game, and they start "rule lawyering", my players tell him or her "um, we don't DO that here, sorry".

god, i love them...

[nijineko]

i always make a point to thank them for their input. that helps put the discussion on a more non-confrontational level right off the bat. i make a point to visibly listen to what they are saying. they tend to take my answer more seriously if everyone can see i took them seriously. if they can quote the source i'll glance through it real quick, if not i simply make a "feels right this time" ruling and look it up after the session.

i like using the lawyers as an in-house reference tool by tossing them questions like, "how do i accomplish 'x' using the rules?" and if things are still not working out, i'll come up with an item or ability that explains why they are allowed to circumvent that rule, usually with a limited or x-times only usage, just in case the party gets the item version. one thing i've noticed is that rules lawyers typically enjoy getting something that allows them to break a rule 3 times. i suspect this works because this brings the "rules violation" to within the understandable framework of the rules-at least in the case of the item. as for the ability version... there are all sorts of monestaries dotting the landscapes of my worlds where some oddball ability or another can be learned. ;D besides, it makes for great in-character soliloquies during the death scene where he explains how and why he was able to do that. maybe now the characters will want to quest out that way to get it for themselves....

i am polite, respectful, and keep it short.

[Anaesthesia]

Being a bit of a rules-lawyer I'll throw my two coppers in.
I agree with Grimwell and Farcaster. Use us. If we are anal enough to read and remember the books that well, using that knowledge is like getting paid.
Rules manipulations are different however. Varients and such should not be introduced mid-stream.

I concurr-I tend to be forgetful, so I do appreciate it when someone is being helpful and reminds me of what I'm talking about (or what I think I'm using) is suppose to be. :P

[Engar]

Fortunately, I have never had to deal with this problem.

You know, if you look around the table and cannot pick out the rules lawyer...:eek:

[michaeljearley]

You know, if you look around the table and cannot pick out the rules lawyer...:eek:

Well, I'm not sure thats entirely true. There might be games that don't have a rules lawyer.

[Stormhound]

Rules lawyers are like a lot of other player types...with proper handling, there's a good chance you can turn their proclivities to the advantage of the whole table. So long as you can reach an agreement with them on who's the GM, you have a chance.

[cplmac]

Just depends on how clear the DM/GM is when they set the parameters of their game. If you set the standard that would be acceptable to stop the flow of the game, then there should not be any question as to when rule questions will be addressed.

[nijineko]

clear parameters are a boon. can always point back to them. as an added bonus, it's kinda hard for them to argue interpretation when it's your own words and not just a name on a book. =D

[Jcosby]

Rules Lawyers can be a hazard to the game if you let them get out of hand. Fortunately the group I play with has been together for a long time and out of the 7 players 5 of them know the rules inside and out. So we rarely have a stoppage of play because of a rules dispute. But in the case that we do I have a general rule in place. The DM is always right until he chooses to be wrong. What I mean by that is, go with the ruling and let the GM look it up later (If it's something that will take more then a minute or two) and he will adjust things if necessary. Also I usually try to rule in favor of the PC's most of the time. Again, because I have long time players I know they aren't out to "bend" the rules to gain something.

If I had someone in my game that was just being a jerk and stopping the game every few minutes to argue something, I would have no problem to ask him to step away from the table and find another game. In the end, the game is about having fun and I won't let one person ruin it for everyone else.

Jeff

[TAROT]

I used to be a bit of one, so I have some tolerance, how much depends upon the following:

a) How trivial is the error.
b) Does he speak up when correcting the error is to his detriment?

However, if the situation doesn't involve PC death, I much prefer that we wait for a break, or discuss this stuff after the session.

Sometimes, you can let the player assume a co-GM position for the more complex sub-systems.

If it is persistent, trivial and breaking flow and train of thought and you've asked the player to stop: "There are situational modifiers of which your character is not aware."

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

As a rules lawyer I like to be as objective as possible, so if our GM has made an error that favors us the players i still make him aware of it, fair is fair.

Not to toot my own horn or anything but I think that can be a redeeming quality of a rules lawyer. To make sure we all are using the rules correctly and accurately.

[gdmcbride]

I agree with the sentiment that there are good rules lawyers and bad.

Good rules lawyer behavior:
The DM asks you what a specific spell, power or condition does. You quote him chapter and verse from memory thus saving a delay of game to look up that ability.

Helping other PCs create their characters so they still match their concept but avoid any serious mechanical missteps.

Becoming the record-keeper of any and all house rules that develop during the game.

Bad rules lawyer behavior:
Correcting the DM in game repeatedly because a spell, power or condition particularly from an NPC isn't working the way you think it should.

Creating PCs that while technically legal pervert the spirit of the game and eradicate fun.

Trying to take over other peoples PCs because they are not, in your opinion, optimizing their character.

Basically difference between the good rules lawyer and the bad is the difference between an assistant and a bully.

Gary

[raven21]

Tell them that all the rules are optinal and the chagne small things up to trow them off. Nothing is worse then a player that can pick out a creature or monster and how to defeat it just buy its decription.

[Holocron]

Indeed, I think I'm sort of in the same catagory as Inquisitor Tremayne. When I started GMing I made more of an effort to learn as much of the rules as I could, so that the game could keep flowing smoothly and the players wouldn't be able to outsmart me.

Players as rules lawyers haven't been a problem for me, mainly because I haven't run into many people who knew the system better than I did. But, I usually try to follow the rules by the book as much as possible, so that there's something to fall back on when there's an arguement, so if a player brought up a rule that I had overlooked, I imagine I would find it useful and concede the point to the player if it was appropriate.

I also feel like its important to follow the consistency of the rules, so that the players have something they can rely on. If the rules are constantly being bent by the GM's power of fiat... you'll have sense of unfairness real quick. Maybe one of the reasons I've never really had an issue with it is because the players know I'm being fair about the rules and will give the players their way when they're right, so they'll never feel like I'm trying to cheat them when something doesn't go their way.

I think I've probably been more of a pain for one of my GM's being a rules lawyer myself like Tremayne. One of my players took over GMing for a few adventures so that I could be the player. At one point, he tried to pull a blatent rule bend on me. The ability in question that I had was an invented one that wasn't in the original rules, but we had mutually agreed on how it would work. Several adventures after the ability had been acquired, he tried to say that it was unrealiable and wasn't functioning at the time. When I pointed out that we had never discussed that before, and considering the amount of points I paid for the ability, it should be pretty reliable he changed tactics and said a particular peice of equipment was able to nullify the ability...

Without getting too far into the nasty details, I was able to finally convince him that forgetting that I had the ability was no excuse to invent lame ways of defeating it.

I'm sure at the time I had ruined the way he was expecting the adventure to turn out, but I know he's thankful after the fact, because now that he's the player again, he gets some indirect benefit my character as an NPC friend of his having that ability.

So in conclusion, I think rules lawyers have their place, as long as they're not arguing every trivial point just for tiny gains. I also think Grimwell had great advice about how to deal with them when it starts to get out of hand.

[boulet]

At one point, he tried to pull a blatent rule bend on me. The ability in question that I had was an invented one that wasn't in the original rules, but we had mutually agreed on how it would work. Several adventures after the ability had been acquired, he tried to say that it was unrealiable and wasn't functioning at the time. When I pointed out that we had never discussed that before, and considering the amount of points I paid for the ability, it should be pretty reliable he changed tactics and said a particular peice of equipment was able to nullify the ability...
In bold, is the part of the text that says it all : it's not a case of rule lawyering at all, it's you calling your GM on an abuse of social contract. The abuse is : if a player describe his character as being good at doing something and thus invest creation points in it, it's going to be perceived as very frustrating from the GM to temper with this aptitude.

Without getting too far into the nasty details, I was able to finally convince him that forgetting that I had the ability was no excuse to invent lame ways of defeating it. The picture is clear. He was a beginner GM, felt his capacity to lead the game would evade him because of your character's talent he had forgotten. The challenge he designed suddenly was too easy for you to overcome. The good point is, he admitted the truth and this honesty makes me think he could be a decent GM actually.

I'm afraid some people might call "rule lawyer" any player who confronts his GM. It's legitimate to call a GM on a point that isn't working for you. Not just about the rules, but even an aspect of the game which is spoiling your fun. If you don't speak how would he know ? After all the game is about enjoying the adventure/story created together.

Now a player breaking the flow several times during a session and raising minor points that nobody else at the table really care about... you get the picture.

[Holocron]

Thanks for the comments Boulet, its encouraging that a fellow gamer can see my point of view.

Indeed, I think he's got potential to be a pretty good GM. This is just the most extreme instance that I've had beef with, and I found it shocking that he'd try to get away with something like that.

I think he prefers to be the player though, and I don't mind GMing because we game so infrequently that my stockpile of story ideas has built up so much that I don't know if he'll ever catch up to everything I've come up with. For now anyway, I think he's content to continue as a player for a while since he knows I've developed so much content for the campaign.

[nijineko]

one should never take away toys that the player has sweated for, or that the character has earned in some fashion-even if via character creation methods; without some seriously well-thought out and developed reasons. ^^

[Grumpy Old Man]

New to the forum but this is a button pusher for me so here are my 2 copper coins.

Two kinds, one knows the game and takes players under his wing and guides them in their choices and can explain why a choice may be good or bad. He aids the DM.

The other knows the rules, doesn't help the other players and browbeats DM into favoring his character because he thinks the game revolves around him. I don't mind dominant players because they can keep the game going while everybody else is scratching their heads but when he tries to dominant the other players he's outta here if I am the DM or I am outta there within a few sessions if the DM cannot or will not rein him in. Game is supposed to be fun for everybody not just the chosen few.

[Thoth-Amon]

Played with both kinds. The actions of the second kind you mentioned caused me to quit a campaign i was involved with a while back, and i never looked back.

Dnd is great with great players. Life is too short to waste time with players that are jerks.

[Holocron]

Indeed... I don't think I've really run into serious problem players though, maybe because I only really game with my closer friends and family...

[Dolran of Arborea]

Every group need at least one person who can quote the steps for grappling or tripping without having to look it up every time. However, recently I had to do some rule lawyering because it would have a) caused the death of the entire party along with half a city block and b) I believed the DM was wrong in doing so. Basically, I had to make a case that there was no way that everyone on the board was going to take 100d6 of damage from an explosion. Eventually, I talked him down to 25d6 and reduced the radius of the blast. Later on, I looked up the rules on the said explosion and it turns out that he was about 10d6 over, but the radius of the blast was about right. My problem was that the DM was willing to kill the entire party for no good reason and also give a mundane item some serious power. Normally, I let the rules bend, stretch, and disappear altogether if need be, but this one time, I just couldn't see a barrel of gunpowder being so powerful. Rule lawyering can be annoying, but sometimes it needs to be done to save the party.

[USFPutty]

I ended up countering a variant of this, a party of seen-it-all, done-it-all characters including the DM of most of the games at the location. Used to the way things are supposed to work, and enemies are supposed to be, I changed a decent number of rules, created differing backstories, wrote new game mechanics (Evasion is broken as hell) and so on. I didn't rewrite the game, but it was 'significantly modded'.

In the beginning, this messed with the players because their knowledge of the rules no longer applied. Many corrections were batted down with a 'not anymore, it works THIS way now'. Soon, though, they got the point. The game had changed enough to be new, interesting, and best of all, a SURPRISE.

Point being, you should master your rules in your world in your game. Everything else is just tools and support for your story.

[Etarnon]

It is for this very reason that I have the "Two Minute Rule," in my games. Often, if a player points out a rule that I didn't realize, I'll adjust my ruling. However, sometimes I just don't agree with the player's interpretation or the rule itself. If that happens, I give my players two minutes to argue their case. After two minutes, I make a judgment-call one way or the other and we move on. The one exception I make to the "Two Minute Rule," is if the disputed rule literally means the difference between life or death for the character. If that's so, I'll take the time needed to make sure we get the ruling right.This is exactly how I do it, even to the point of the "two minutes of petition by players." If it's life and death, I'll look it up, and go with "exactly" what the book says, since most cases like that are clearly defined.

Back in the day, I used to referee city-wide unit Battletech tournaments and Traveller RPG sessions in San Diego, at a local hobby chain, so much so that if i hadn't been on active duty at the time the store owner offered me a permanent job, working for his store running demos of various games, since when I ran them "The stuff flew off the shelf, and great sales every tourney day."

So, I had to make sure I was up on the rules, especially for Battletech, to the point of re-reading them, once every two weeks, cover to cover, to where I could quote "page 46, left side, paragraph 3" pretty much verbatim.

So, as often happens in battletech, people come to tournaments with a sense of what the rules say, but only in the amount that it applies to whatever move or technique that they want to use, used or excerpted out of context of a whole paragraph.

More than once people challenged me on the rules, since the whole game is pure combat, and nearly any attack can end in the destruction or serious damage of the vehicle, or death of the pilot...thus ending the game experience...So, it's pretty dramatic. And these were pay to play tournaments.

I'd briefly stop the game, and say, "What do you think the rule says?"
the guy would then say something mushy, not really sure, and I'd pretty much quote from the book from memory.

If that wasn't sufficient to satisfy him, then I'd have other people complete their turns, while a third guy looked it up and read it aloud. After a few times of third party reading it, pretty much as I had said, I got a reputation as a referee who knew his stuff, was fair and impartial, and lived to the letter of the rules if not the spirit, whether it was a call that screwed the good guys or the bad guy NPCs.

That's all most good players want, is a fair chance.

When I am in a game, as a player, before I join, especially fantasy, which seems to vary a lot between games, I ask up front is it rules as written or house rules or what, what the setting is, is it low magic, or high magic, etc. BEFORE I join, so that I know what I like, and can self filter out if the DMs style is something I don't want to deal with.


I have DMed so long, I know what it is to be called upon to make rules judgements, and how it can get stressful really quick. I don't push my DMs. I might remind them about a rule from core, like "Have you considered...X?"

If I see people counter-railroading a neophyte DM, I'll help him out, if he asks, acting as the "Guy that knows the rules pretty well" to help out the DM, without taking over the game. Sometimes, Instead of quoting, I'll just simply say "Dave, it's up to you, man, make the call, and let's get back to playing."

I figure, it's his/her game, not mine, run it the way he/she wants. As long as the story is good, and I'm having fun, run it rules light or rules heavy up to the specific DM. If it gets intolerable, I can always disinvite myself, but I have rarely needed to in over 30 years of gaming.

As a DM / Ref, I have asked about a half dozen players to depart, of the maybe a hundred plus I've known over the last three decades, when they just wanted to keep arguing, and the rest of the group wanted to move on.

If I'm wrong, and a rule is pointed out to me, I thank the player, because I want to know the rules, cold.

But a player getting all in my face, with "You're killing my PC, you're screwing me over!" No thanks.

Games like 3.5 and GURPS are hard to run, for the sheer number of books. I like to know the whole system. I just really enjoyed 1e, all in one book, and a lot of it is on the DM.

Ditto for Classic Traveller. The rules are simple, but with that framework, you can get great depth of setting, and conflict resolution.

[GoddessGood]

I admire your dedication, man. Re-read the rulebook every few weeks? Nice :cool:

[Etarnon]

Not these days. But yes, I used to. Because I was unofficially representing the store...I was in charge of one of those units playing, and I was on active duty, and hads to be above reproach, since it was a paid tournament.

Nowadays, I don't have the time to do that, but that was 15 years ago.

[Thoth-Amon]

I remember the days of old, where we had every rule and chart memorized by page. If we found that we were unable to quote a paragraph found in the PHB & the DMG, we sure as hell could paraphrase it. I remember talking with other players one day, way back when, that if ever the xians burned our books, it would be of no consequence to us for we had everything memorized. Nothing could stop DnD from perverting our young little innocent minds to be drawn into witchcraft(kidding).

1st edition good times. Thoth remembers fondly of his yonger years.

[Etarnon]

XiANS, I LIKE IT.

All you guys that play 3.X

:)

Thanks for a new word.

[TAROT]

XiANS, I LIKE IT.

All you guys that play 3.X

I'm pretty sure that the reference was to these people:

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

[cplmac]

Not these days. But yes, I used to. Because I was unofficially representing the store...I was in charge of one of those units playing, and I was on active duty, and hads to be above reproach, since it was a paid tournament.

Nowadays, I don't have the time to do that, but that was 15 years ago.


So what branch of the service were you in?

[Etarnon]

I was a Torpeodoman's Mate, Technician. Deployed on both Ship and shore, USN. Mostly San Diego.

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

:focus:

[cplmac]

Etarnon, did you have much of a problem with rules lawyers back when you were in charge of that paid tournament? How many times did you have to actually show the paragraph in the book that proved you were correct before the rules lawyer would finally conceed that they aren't remembering something right? Luckily, I haven't had to deal with a rules lawyer in my games. Now I have had some players lobby for their interpretation of a particular rule. I will admit that there have been a few occaisions that I have went with their idea, mostly because they had a good explanation for their thinking.

[Etarnon]

To the point of semi-confrontation, Only thrice in three years of running tournaments for Game Towne.

Most of the time, it was "Is this the rule or what?"

"Yeah, it's X and Y, on page 42, right side."

Or just a verbal, like reminder.

Since it was a medium sized community of less than a hundred players, all playing Battletech, mostly active duty military guys...(mostly enlisted navy but a rare few officers, along with a sprinkling of marines, and oh about a dozen civilians) you know, they read the rules like regs, and played by them, were proactive, with high intiative, and all of them set up their units with a loose to strict chain of command.

I recall one day, there was this huge reginment sized battle where 200 pts of damage were hitting individual mecha per round, essentially crippling or destroying a single light to medium unit instantly...stackpole rules, where if you crit all engine spaces it might go nuclear fireball.

So one mech is down with legs blown off, fighting with a single arm plasma cannon, at the overrunning bad guys. The bad guy pilot (who was a surfer from Mission Beach) in his face says, "Gee, man! your 'mech can't move! Face it, you're dead! Why don't you guys just surrender?"

The guys unit CO (who was watching all units as he was the battalion commander), a Navy Chief, yells pretty loudly from 6 feet away, "He hasn't been given PERMISSION to SURRENDER. PILOT! Hold what you got!"

"Aye, Aye, Sir!"

So everyone laughed because...most of us were active duty, and we knew the drill, and you know.. lived that life, for real, too.