Why the Hate for Rules Lawyers?

[Dog_O_War]

Dog used the example argument of "If I had known X I wouldnt have tried Z"
Which is pure bunk 90% of the time with Rules Lawyers.
They knew X would happen but they didnt plan on failing.
And they certainly didnt plan on the GM having a set of consequences in case X failed.
Thats when they start the arguments. (god forbid failure complicate things).

I cannot disagree. That is what it is like 90% of the time said argument is presented.

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)

I call foul on this rule; there is a significant percentage of NPCs that have some piece of unique gear the GM goes out of their way to ensure, A: never ends up in player hands, and B: is otherwise impossible to duplicate.

Basically, while some people state this, I have found nearly 100% of the time that only the gander is seeing the "good" of it.
If it were truly the way you've described, it would be more fair.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.

This rule.
See, there is a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and that ruling being wrong.

Typically, it's when the GM is shown that their ruling is wrong do they get butthurt. You show a RL they are wrong and they shut up and are typically a little embarrassed.

You show a wannabe RL they are wrong and those are the ones that tend to argue; the wannabes.

That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

No. There are other ways.
Stronger ways. More dominant ways.

I use the "to the books!" method personally. That's were if a rules discrepancy creeps up, everyone is tasked with going into the books to find the rule and determine the effect it has. It gets everyone involved, and everyone learns something. It's super effective!
This of course is always cross-referenced with any house-rules in effect.

[Damian Magecraft]

And that's where you are wrong Dog.
It's not the the wannabes that get bent. It's the Rules Lawyer.

Part of the problem is you are confusing a Rules Guru (knowledgeable in the rules but also allows the GM slack) with the perjorative term Rules Lawyer.
The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.
The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

See, I find myself doing this a lot. Reminding people of rules when they're forgetting. I try to be consistent though, I don't pick on people. I even call myself on it. What I don't do is contradict the GM when he makes a ruling, however. Canon is whatever the hell they want it to be and as a player it's not my call.

When I find that a rules lawyer is "contradicting" a ruling given out by the GM, it is actually the GM contradicting themselves and said rules lawyer calling them on it.

For example;
(start of game)
R.L.: "so we're playing by the book's rules, and those house-rules you have, right?"
GM: "yeah, that's the way I do it. It's totally fair for everyone"

(later in the game)
GM: "okay <action> happens; you all <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "why? the rules say that when 'Y' happens, we avoid 'X', like in this situation."
GM: "No. You all still <take/lose/suffer> 'X'."
R.L.: "but that's not in the rules you said we were using. If I had known, I wouldn't have done 'Z'."
etc.

And that's how it plays out like 90% of the time.

Generally, this takes up time, and only one player has the will to take a stand, while other sheepish players will instead say nothing, or suck-up to the GM by "being on the GM's side". Again, other players will complain that such actions 'delay the game', but role-playing isn't golf - there is no 'rate of play' clause here.

There are a couple of things a player can do if their GM insists on being God (and not just playing them) for the game; Not play. But this option sucks.

Complain ineffectually to the others after the fact, creating a subversive atmosphere and ultimately doom the game. Which also sucks.

Or you can attempt the risky, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" technique. When the above situation happens (and not before), just add 150% of everything to your character, and when you get questioned on it, you say, "well if you're playing like the rules are a suggestion, then I have done nothing wrong here and my character is legitimate. If the rules aren't a suggestion, then I would more than happily go back to my original stats, so long as you go forth being fair and upholding your end of the agreement, which was that we were using said rules, modified by the rules you've given us copies for".

There is a lot to consider for both players and GMs when you play a game; namingly, that it is a game, first and foremost, and that games have rules.

here is the reason for the "hate"
META GAMING
Its the same reason Min/Maxers get flack

Dog used the example argument of "If I had known X I wouldnt have tried Z"
Which is pure bunk 90% of the time with Rules Lawyers.
They knew X would happen but they didnt plan on failing.
And they certainly didnt plan on the GM having a set of consequences in case X failed.
Thats when they start the arguments. (god forbid failure complicate things).

At the start of every game I post up my 5 Rules to a good game.
These rules supersede the books at all times.
5 Simple Rules for Good Game Mastering

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)

#2: Actions have consequences.
Pretty self explanatory... every action (even good ones) will produce some kind of result beyond the immediate. The Party Kills that NPC that had the secret information to defeat the Bad Guy? Now they do not have access to that information. The party chases a petty tyrant from a town? The tale of their good deed spreads. The town folk are grateful; etc... (Remember consequences do not have to be bad things good things can come about as well).

#3: Events do not stagnate.
The Party chooses to ignore a plot thread? This is not a video game; The villain is not going to wait for the heroes to "get around" to him; He is going to continue with plans. What could this mean for our heroes? The Big Bad Evil Guy might be bigger and badder than he would have been if they had followed it when it was first presented. Or it could be that another band of heroes defeated him stealing the players thunder.

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.

#5: Have Fun.
Do I really need to explain this?

Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart) starts up I point to rule 4 and start the timer.
If after 5 minutes the RL continues to argue I point to rule 2 and hand him a blank character sheet saying "obviously you are dissatisfied with your current character perhaps a new one will make for a more enjoyable game for you?"

That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

i agree and recommend these rules for all, mostly #5

[Dog_O_War]

And that's where you are wrong Dog.
It's not the the wannabes that get bent. It's the Rules Lawyer.

Part of the problem is you are confusing a Rules Guru (knowledgeable in the rules but also allows the GM slack) with the perjorative term Rules Lawyer.
The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.
The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.

See, I always found it to be the other way. I have actually never experienced the above situation you've described.

At least, not in the method you've described. I have had plenty of regular players cry 'Over-Powered!' when they run into something that can erase the party, and that is typically created through a loophole by the GM. I've done it (cried 'OP!' that is), but I wasn't the only one at the table. That seems to affect the group more-so than it does solely the R.L.

[Damian Magecraft]

And that's where you are wrong Dog.
It's not the the wannabes that get bent. It's the Rules Lawyer.

Part of the problem is you are confusing a Rules Guru (knowledgeable in the rules but also allows the GM slack) with the perjorative term Rules Lawyer.
The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.
The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.

See, I always found it to be the other way. I have actually never experienced the above situation you've described.

At least, not in the method you've described. I have had plenty of regular players cry 'Over-Powered!' when they run into something that can erase the party, and that is typically created through a loophole by the GM. I've done it (cried 'OP!' that is), but I wasn't the only one at the table. That seems to affect the group more-so than it does solely the R.L.

Then I would have to say that your experiences are not the norm.
Rules lawyer (as I have described him) has existed since shortly after the inception of the hobby.
Maybe its because I have had such a large player base over 35 years, but my experiences show the negative version exists and in large numbers.

[jaymz]

I have a simple solution.

Before I start any campaign everyone gets a copy of my house rules (maybe a dozen pages total with some charts/tables etc)

Once we start playing, in an given session, if a rules issue pops up, my standing position is this "we play it as is for this session and we'll discuss it after the session". I find this usually lets the player feel he may in fact have an issue that needs dealing with, it will get dealt with and the game continues. If after the session the player had a valid complaint and the ruling was incorrect, it will be corrected and changed for all session following but results of THAT session stand unless the wrong call made a very significant change of some kind (eventually causing a character death or sumsuch). This has generally worked 99% of the time. The other 1% is usually when I say "um, we aren't going to spend an unknown amount of time doing this NOW, if you cannot accept that then you are welcome to walk away"

[Nightmask]

I have a simple solution.

Before I start any campaign everyone gets a copy of my house rules (maybe a dozen pages total with some charts/tables etc)

Once we start playing, in an given session, if a rules issue pops up, my standing position is this "we play it as is for this session and we'll discuss it after the session". I find this usually lets the player feel he may in fact have an issue that needs dealing with, it will get dealt with and the game continues. If after the session the player had a valid complaint and the ruling was incorrect, it will be corrected and changed for all session following but results of THAT session stand unless the wrong call made a very significant change of some kind (eventually causing a character death or sumsuch). This has generally worked 99% of the time. The other 1% is usually when I say "um, we aren't going to spend an unknown amount of time doing this NOW, if you cannot accept that then you are welcome to walk away"

I wish every GM handed out a list of his house rules like that, especially those that radically alter things (such as a GM who ruled that if you were so many steps below an opponent in fighting ability or agility you couldn't dodge their attacks so were little more than a punching bag for them). So many go into such massive detail for so many other things you'd think they could take the time to detail their house rules and hand out the list to everyone playing instead of hearing 'oh no your character's dead I house ruled that that move doesn't work even though it's in the books' after you've done something you'd have not done if you'd known the rule ahead of time.

[Damian Magecraft]

A lot of game masters I know tell you any house rules they have before a game starts. I have to agree that the ones that don't invite a little debate on rules when they spring house rules in the middle of a game.

Sometimes though the house rule is so ingrained in the group that they have forgotten that it is a house rule at all...
which leads to all sorts of additional issues when you phase in new players to an existing group.

[jaymz]

A lot of game masters I know tell you any house rules they have before a game starts. I have to agree that the ones that don't invite a little debate on rules when they spring house rules in the middle of a game.

Sometimes though the house rule is so ingrained in the group that they have forgotten that it is a house rule at all...
which leads to all sorts of additional issues when you phase in new players to an existing group.

That why I, personally, make sure I give a copy of my house rules to anyone joining ahead of time in case of questions and desire for explanations.

[Damian Magecraft]

A lot of game masters I know tell you any house rules they have before a game starts. I have to agree that the ones that don't invite a little debate on rules when they spring house rules in the middle of a game.

Sometimes though the house rule is so ingrained in the group that they have forgotten that it is a house rule at all...
which leads to all sorts of additional issues when you phase in new players to an existing group.

That why I, personally, make sure I give a copy of my house rules to anyone joining ahead of time in case of questions and desire for explanations.

even with the advent of the Laptop/PDD sometimes GMs and players miss one or two "common" house rules.
Some latitude should be granted when joining an established group not every single house rule will always make it into the group guide.
Mostly these are minor rules like rolling 3 ones are counted as 3 twos (or 3 sixes) at character gen.
Big things like Nightmasks example really should have been passed on though.

[jaymz]

A lot of game masters I know tell you any house rules they have before a game starts. I have to agree that the ones that don't invite a little debate on rules when they spring house rules in the middle of a game.

Sometimes though the house rule is so ingrained in the group that they have forgotten that it is a house rule at all...
which leads to all sorts of additional issues when you phase in new players to an existing group.

That why I, personally, make sure I give a copy of my house rules to anyone joining ahead of time in case of questions and desire for explanations.

even with the advent of the Laptop/PDD sometimes GMs and players miss one or two "common" house rules.
Some latitude should be granted when joining an established group not every single house rule will always make it into the group guide.
Mostly these are minor rules like rolling 3 ones are counted as 3 twos (or 3 sixes) at character gen.
Big things like Nightmasks example really should have been passed on though.

Well I know for me personally any changes that are made are noted on my prime copy of house rules and then I update and make sure everyone gets the change marked on thier own copies thus anyone new joiing always gets the most up to date copy. I'm funny that way.

[Vrykolas2k]

If something isn't fair, either for or against a given player, I give a fair hearing and discussion.
Naturally, I expect similar courtesy.

[Damian Magecraft]

I wanted to come back to this one since I did not feel I addressed it very well.

#1: What is good for one is good for all.
Also known as the Goose/Gander rule. It basically means any Power/skill/spell/gear the PCs have access to so do the NPCs. (and Vice Verse)

I call foul on this rule; there is a significant percentage of NPCs that have some piece of unique gear the GM goes out of their way to ensure, A: never ends up in player hands, and B: is otherwise impossible to duplicate.

Basically, while some people state this, I have found nearly 100% of the time that only the gander is seeing the "good" of it.
If it were truly the way you've described, it would be more fair.

GM Maxim #2 Never introduce anything into the game you are not prepared for the players to eventually use and abuse.
The GM took steps to preserve the setting from abuse by the players? shocking! How Dare He?

#4: The GM is god (to a point).
Regardless of what some players would have you think; the GM really is god (of his game world); he controls every thing in the game universe except the PCs. Arguing with him over a decision is tantamount to telling the gods they are running the universe wrong. (see rule #2)
But GMs are human and therefore fallible. If a Player disagrees with you give them 5 minutes to calmly and rationally present their case. This does not mean you (the GM) have to change your call but you do have to give it a listen and actively consider it.
Players if the you are still not happy with the GMs call; do not continue to disrupt the game; this does nothing to further your case. Instead accept the call for the remainder of the game and then discuss it in further depth after the session is over.
Both sides need to remember that calm rational discussion will go farther than a shouting match will.

This rule.
See, there is a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and that ruling being wrong. And who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?

Typically, it's when the GM is shown that their ruling is wrong do they get butthurt. You show a RL they are wrong and they shut up and are typically a little embarrassed. Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.
The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.

You show a wannabe RL they are wrong and those are the ones that tend to argue; the wannabes. covered in a previous post

That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

No. There are other ways.
Stronger ways. More dominant ways. Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.

[Tor]

its not up to the players what rules are used? That's the GM's (and ONLY the GM's) Job?

That's a matter of opinion. Since it's a player's choice whether or not to participate in a game that a GM runs, they can definitely have a say in what rules the GM uses (voting with their feet).

Also your example is narrow because much of this conversation could apply to player v. player conflict, not player v. GM.

It isn't right to accuse a player of fun-ruining if a GM suddenly changes a rule and a player doesn't like it.

That is exactly the argument that put forward by a rules lawyer that is disliked by most people.

You do not speak for 'most people'. If you want to convey opinions please only say "I dislike this", and perhaps convey the opinions of close friends whom you might speak for, but it is wrong for any of us to assume to speak for the majority of people or gamers.

What particularly do YOU dislike about the argument? Why do you dislike it? That is the critical thing here. That people (and how many people) dislike something is, by itself, not a wholesome criticism.

The concept that "this game has the following rules, and we can and must use them, and only them." The printed rules are so that everyone has the same baseline to start from but the individual variations will be just that, variations.

Players should still be informed of changes to reality though.

If I choose to drop Alignments from my game, I am STILL playing Rifts, I just don't use a rule I find silly.

That's fine, but if a GM drops alignments he should inform players, so that they know that suddenly, abilities that may have shaped some players (like being able to sense supernatural EVIL) are suddenly useless, and have effectively been retconned out of any past gaming sessions.

There is no requirement anywhere that all rules ever published be used in all situations with no exceptions, and in fact in some games that would be impossible. That's why you have a GM (you know Game Master, that's why they have that name instead of something like 'referee')

Rules lawyers take no issue when a GM clearly states "I am not using X rule" or "I am introducing new rule Y" so long as this is done blatently and with player agreement.

The problem occurs when GMs introduce rules without telling players about them, rules which alter characters and the universe they exist in, as that influences how people are roleplayed.

Rune weapons, for example (or Magic Weapons in HU) work a lot differently in a universe without alignments.

here is the reason for the "hate" META GAMING Its the same reason Min/Maxers get flack

Dog used the example argument of "If I had known X I wouldnt have tried Z" Which is pure bunk 90% of the time with Rules Lawyers.

The flaw in this criticism is meta-gaming is easily diagnosed.

While characters being roleplayed do not know the rules, they DO know the reality that those rules create.

Therefore if you are roleplaying a character, taking your understanding of the rules into account while playing them is perfectly valid.

If you play a character the same way in an RMB world with no penalty for dodging energy weapons, and a RUE world with a huge penalty for dodging energy weapons, then you're roleplaying badly.

People would have entirely different opinions about ranged combat and when to engage in it based on the reality the rules create.

So a rules "lawyer" usually has a completely valid objection when GMs introduce new rules to a campaign without explanation, changes them on the fly, introduces them on the fly, etc. They often introduce rules which effectively alter the very reality someone lives in. Rules that may have changed what resulted in previous gaming sessions, results that shape how a character is roleplayed.

Ignoring the dodge penalization, if we look at the removal of automatic body flip for Commandos, that's another issue. Previously, Commandos would have more freely launched themself into a crowd of attackers, since they could have easily kept them tangled up. Similarly, a player group would have been hesitant even to gang up on a Commando.

By removing their automatic defense, it alters the reality in which Commandos exist, and what Commandos ARE. The effectiveness of PCs and NPCs alike is compromised, and this WOULD affect the roleplaying.

Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart)

Never heard this different Guru term. I'd argue certain virtues are probably being applied to Gurus which many of us see in Lawyers.

If after 5 minutes the RL continues to argue I point to rule 2 and hand him a blank character sheet saying "obviously you are dissatisfied with your current character perhaps a new one will make for a more enjoyable game for you?" That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

No, it isn't the only way to deal with them. That's called being a Killer GM, someone players are often dissatisfied with.

If a CS Commando suddenly stripped of an automatic body flip is angry about that (because up until now, he has been taking awareness of that ability into consideration) his objection is completely legitimate. As would the objections of a Juicer (who could previously auto-dodge lasers reliably) who (due to penalties) lost this ability. Rule changes without explanations are effectively ret-cons to a universe.

If a campaign happened in an astral realm, you could introduce an explanation like 'The Astral Lord has made gunfire harder to avoid by warping reality itself" then that would be cool. But reality changing on a whim because a GM got a new book or wants to introduce a new rule (which should have been applied to earlier events) without explanation, that's a huge thing which should have some explanation.

The problem here is when GMs don't do adequate storytelling to explain changes. Not players who are confused by them. Classic example of victim-blaming. Blame the mortals, not the omnipotent reality-creators.

And that's where you are wrong Dog. It's not the the wannabes that get bent. It's the Rules Lawyer. Part of the problem is you are confusing a Rules Guru (knowledgeable in the rules but also allows the GM slack) with the perjorative term Rules Lawyer.

You say 'confusing' as if you're the arbiter of how we define what a Rules Lawyer is. I haven't even heard of a 'Guru' until now, feels like you're inventing it. However long it's been around, I bet it's new compared to Lawyer.

The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.

Yeah, it carries negative connotations to those who hate lawyers. Not everyone uses the term negatively. Some of us who like lawyers apply less insulting stereotypes to it, and simply use it to describe people who are knowledgeable of the rules and who advocate for them.

The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.

Yeah... no. That seems like some stuff you're just making up about rules lawyers. It's like you're dividing rules lawyers into a bad kind (for which you retain 'lawyer') and a good kind (for which you introduce 'guru').

Rules lawyers can respond any way with their knowledge. Some fairly, some not. A fair lawyer will not balk if a 'loophole' (a subjective label) hurts their PC as much (or more) as it helps.

who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?

Both. Deciding what is right and wrong is a collaborative effort. Players can leave a campaign they don't like, and if enough do that, there is no campaign anymore and the GM's just writing an NPC novel.

Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.

You're just engaging in malicious stereotypes against rules lawyers now. You're applying meanings to the term based on your notion of them, and not the broader concept that people accept. You are describing a particular concept.

RLs are capable of being quiet, and of voicing their opinions without shouting. They can attempt to make points without drowning out opposition.

The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.

More of your imaginary 'rules guru' here I see. I refuse to accept your new term as it is being used to wrongly malign the term lawyer.

You show a wannabe RL they are wrong and those are the ones that tend to argue; the wannabes.

The problem here is it relies on the assumption that they are wrong, or that they were properly shown to be wrong, or that they believe they are wrong. All things that may not be true.

Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.

There are different kinds of dominance. Bullying players may be more immediately dominant, but in the long-term is makes players lose respect and trust in their GM, which is not healthy for an enjoyable gaming environment.

[BlueLion]

I have noticed a lot of people in various posts stating how Rules Lawyers ruin games and aren't welcome to play with them etc.
Why is that?
Personally, if someone is cheating the system and the GM doesn't realize it, I'll make sure the GM knows each and every time.
Rules Lawyers are those who combat cheats, isn't that a good thing?

Actually a rules Lawyer does not combat cheats, he combats any thing he does not want to happen or even the GMs rulings on things. The often waste time during session trying to prove his reading of the rules is the only one that maters stopping game play. A good example of a rules lawyer can be found in the comic Knights of the dinner table, the charter known as brain is a rules lawyer constantly trying to cheat the system for personal gain. He even at times fudges things to hedge his bets.

The time the forums is the place to debate rules not the gaming table. If you have a problem with a GMs call talk to him about it in a calm manner out of session but do not stop other people from having fun. And remember a GM has the right to change/ignore rules as he fills is best for the game if you can not resolve the issue with your GM find a new table.

[Damian Magecraft]

Every time A Rules Lawyer (this animal is different from a Rules Guru though sometimes hard to tell apart)

Never heard this different Guru term. I'd argue certain virtues are probably being applied to Gurus which many of us see in Lawyers.

That "many" is in the minority in the hobby.

The term lawyer carries negative connotations for a reason.

Yeah, it carries negative connotations to those who hate lawyers. Not everyone uses the term negatively. Some of us who like lawyers apply less insulting stereotypes to it, and simply use it to describe people who are knowledgeable of the rules and who advocate for them.

Addressed below.

The RL argues loopholes that give him an edge but will throw a fit if the GM uses said loophole against him.

Yeah... no. That seems like some stuff you're just making up about rules lawyers. It's like you're dividing rules lawyers into a bad kind (for which you retain 'lawyer') and a good kind (for which you introduce 'guru').

Rules lawyers can respond any way with their knowledge. Some fairly, some not. A fair lawyer will not balk if a 'loophole' (a subjective label) hurts their PC as much (or more) as it helps.

35+ years in the hobby and I have only ever seen 2 out of the one hundred (2% is an awful low percentage wouldnt you say?) of RLs I have had the displeasure of dealing with not balk at a loophole they initially utilized being used against them. (Most people hate being hoist by their own petard).

who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?

Both. Deciding what is right and wrong is a collaborative effort. Players can leave a campaign they don't like, and if enough do that, there is no campaign anymore and the GM's just writing an NPC novel.

You are both Right and wrong on this.
yes Players can vote with their feet.
But... there is a reason players far out number GMs.
No one else wants the headaches involved with the job.

Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.

You're just engaging in malicious stereotypes against rules lawyers now. You're applying meanings to the term based on your notion of them, and not the broader concept that people accept. You are describing a particular concept.

RLs are capable of being quiet, and of voicing their opinions without shouting. They can attempt to make points without drowning out opposition.

my 35+ years of experience in the hobby as a player and 30+ years as a GM (of multiple systems) says they cant.

The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.

More of your imaginary 'rules guru' here I see. I refuse to accept your new term as it is being used to wrongly malign the term lawyer.

Like it or not the Term Rules Lawyer is a pejorative and has been for over 35+ years.
For every one positive type there are 10 negative ones. (and it only takes one negative to cancel the works of 10 positives).
The term has too much inertia at this point to be changed.
Many positive type RLs have taken the route that Power Gamers and Optimizers have of adopting a new term to represent them.
The terms Rules Guru, GMs Assistant, and Rules Master have been bandied about to represent the positive players. Of those only one doesnt carry slight negative overtones and yet aptly describes the personality traits.
So at this point your choices are limited... Either rail against 35+ years of established dogma (and in all likely hood fail) or change the term with which you identify yourself.

You show a wannabe RL they are wrong and those are the ones that tend to argue; the wannabes.

The problem here is it relies on the assumption that they are wrong, or that they were properly shown to be wrong, or that they believe they are wrong. All things that may not be true.

Miss attributed quote. Dog said that not me.

Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.

There are different kinds of dominance. Bullying players may be more immediately dominant, but in the long-term is makes players lose respect and trust in their GM, which is not healthy for an enjoyable gaming environment.

But its ok for the players to bully the GM? (which is exactly what the Rules Lawyer does... Bully the GM with a show of their "system mastery" and the unspoken threat of "my way or I will ruin your rep" ) Double standard much?

[Giant2005]

The terms Rules Guru, GMs Assistant, and Rules Master have been bandied about to represent the positive players. Of those only one doesnt carry slight negative overtones and yet aptly describes the personality traits.
So at this point your choices are limited... Either rail against 35+ years of established dogma (and in all likely hood fail) or change the term with which you identify yourself.

I prefer the term: Rules Batman.

[Damian Magecraft]

The terms Rules Guru, GMs Assistant, and Rules Master have been bandied about to represent the positive players. Of those only one doesnt carry slight negative overtones and yet aptly describes the personality traits.
So at this point your choices are limited... Either rail against 35+ years of established dogma (and in all likely hood fail) or change the term with which you identify yourself.

I prefer the term: Rules Batman.

While a good one it still sends an adversarial vibe.
Guru is non adversarial, and heavily implies mastery without sounding obnoxious.
Which is why I have chosen to back and promote the term Rules Guru when referring to the "good rules lawyer."

[Dog_O_War]

I wanted to come back to this one since I did not feel I addressed it very well.

This rule.
See, there is a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and that ruling being wrong.

And who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?

Well, if the GM said that it is one way and then does the opposite, he would be contradicting himself.
So a prep. question: is the GM always right? No. You may be thinking 'yes', but he certainly wouldn't be right if he started dictating the actions of his players, now would he? So if he can be wrong here, he can be wrong elsewhere.

So when the GM contradicts himself, he can thusly be wrong; he has to be wrong in the situation of a contradiction; both of his rulings regarding one situation/thing cannot be right.

Therefore, if the GM contradicts himself, it is the GM who has defined what is wrong.

Typically, it's when the GM is shown that their ruling is wrong do they get butthurt. You show a RL they are wrong and they shut up and are typically a little embarrassed.

Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.
The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.

All I have to say is that you've likely not provided evidence if you have a RL 'shouting louder'. The quickest way to get them to shut up is have them read the rule out loud. Things sound different out loud.

That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

No. There are other ways.
Stronger ways. More dominant ways.

Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.

Is a King still a King if he has no subjects? Booting people is not dominance, it's tyranny. You'd actually be better-off turning players against the dissident than you would simply kicking someone from a group.

[kaid]

I am by nature a bit of a rules lawyer but I try not to be. This is especially true in rifts because there have been enough inconsistencies that developed over the years due to drift in terminologies and some other issue as well as flat out contradictions in the rules that trying to get to rules lawyery is a gateway to madness.

[BlueLion]

I wanted to come back to this one since I did not feel I addressed it very well.

This rule.
See, there is a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and that ruling being wrong.

And who defines wrong for the GMs setting? you? or the GM?

Well, if the GM said that it is one way and then does the opposite, he would be contradicting himself.
So a prep. question: is the GM always right? No. You may be thinking 'yes', but he certainly wouldn't be right if he started dictating the actions of his players, now would he? So if he can be wrong here, he can be wrong elsewhere.

So when the GM contradicts himself, he can thusly be wrong; he has to be wrong in the situation of a contradiction; both of his rulings regarding one situation/thing cannot be right.

Therefore, if the GM contradicts himself, it is the GM who has defined what is wrong.

Typically, it's when the GM is shown that their ruling is wrong do they get butthurt. You show a RL they are wrong and they shut up and are typically a little embarrassed.

Rules Lawyers do not shut up they shout louder in hopes that if the GM cannot be heard then they will be deemed right.
The Rules Guru on the other hand... when shown to be in the wrong will withdraw their objection.

All I have to say is that you've likely not provided evidence if you have a RL 'shouting louder'. The quickest way to get them to shut up is have them read the rule out loud. Things sound different out loud.

That is the only way to deal with a Rules Lawyer.

No. There are other ways.
Stronger ways. More dominant ways.

Cant get much more dominant than "roll up a new character" or being pointed to the door.

Is a King still a King if he has no subjects? Booting people is not dominance, it's tyranny. You'd actually be better-off turning players against the dissident than you would simply kicking someone from a group.

I would say the person in charge of deterging what happens is always right. Such as the NCO calling out cadence in formation he is the only one never out of step. Now do people some times make mistakes? yes. An occasional reminder is usually not what people hate. What they hate is some one who frequently disrupts the flow of a game over what can be seen as a waste of time. If you have problems with how your GM treats his players or dislike his style you may need to find a new group instead of ruining the fun for those that enjoy it.

Also how you present you case can affect it to. It is ok to some times say something like doesn't Y give me bonus X, Or did you take into account Y. (the key is sometimes if you are doing it several times in a combat session there may be issues that need worked out, during down time. Not ok to spend 10 minuets auguring with a GM about Lanawar hunter being able to parry with his tale when its foe does a simultaneous attack during the hunteters twin strike (attacking with both his swords).

[BlueLion]

I am by nature a bit of a rules lawyer but I try not to be. This is especially true in rifts because there have been enough inconsistencies that developed over the years due to drift in terminologies and some other issue as well as flat out contradictions in the rules that trying to get to rules lawyery is a gateway to madness.

Even games with short run times can develop inconsistency in the rules. Terminologies and what people think things do or should mean very.

[flatline]

The story already in progress:
GM: okay, this is what happens...
RL: wait, last time we did this, the result was...
GM: hmm...you're right....

Ending A (GM realizes that he did the wrong thing before):
GM: ...last time was a mistake, here's how I'm handling it now.
RL: but if we'd known that's how it worked, we would have done that instead...
GM: okay, let's start the round over.

Ending B (GM realizes that he's doing the wrong thing now):
GM: ...okay, this is what happens instead...sorry about that.

Ending C (GM has a good reason for a different outcome but the players don't know it yet):
GM: oddly enough, the result is different from last time.
RL: but if we'd known that's how it worked, we would have done that instead...
GM: nonetheless, this is what happens this time. Moving on.

All three endings are valid endings, but ending C is the only one where the Rules Lawyer is likely to make a fuss. I've been in groups where the player's simply went "oh, okay" and moved on and I've also played in groups where the players threw a tantrum. The difference between those groups is that in the "mature" groups, the players trusted the GM to make a fair decision even if he couldn't explain the decision to them right then. In the "tantrum" groups, the players and GM were antagonistic and so the players felt they had to defend every scrap of advantage they had in every situation.

The moral of the story is that GM's make Rules Lawyers. Treat your players with respect, expect them to treat you with respect, and you'll be fine.

--flatline

[BlueLion]

The story already in progress:
GM: okay, this is what happens...
RL: wait, last time we did this, the result was...
GM: hmm...you're right....

Ending A (GM realizes that he did the wrong thing before):
GM: ...last time was a mistake, here's how I'm handling it now.
RL: but if we'd known that's how it worked, we would have done that instead...
GM: okay, let's start the round over.

Ending B (GM realizes that he's doing the wrong thing now):
GM: ...okay, this is what happens instead...sorry about that.

Ending C (GM has a good reason for a different outcome but the players don't know it yet):
GM: oddly enough, the result is different from last time.
RL: but if we'd known that's how it worked, we would have done that instead...
GM: nonetheless, this is what happens this time. Moving on.

All three endings are valid endings, but ending C is the only one where the Rules Lawyer is likely to make a fuss. I've been in groups where the player's simply went "oh, okay" and moved on and I've also played in groups where the players threw a tantrum. The difference between those groups is that in the "mature" groups, the players trusted the GM to make a fair decision even if he couldn't explain the decision to them right then. In the "tantrum" groups, the players and GM were antagonistic and so the players felt they had to defend every scrap of advantage they had in every situation.

The moral of the story is that GM's make Rules Lawyers. Treat your players with respect, expect them to treat you with respect, and you'll be fine.

--flatline

You know what is funny I seen a GM that would some times fudge things to keep the party from dyeing and a rules lawyer gave him a hard time about some ruling so he just went all consistent and some one died. (Now granted I get offended if a GM bends the rules to keep my charter alive and I told him that so I was the only one he would normally let die. I hold several records for charter deaths in groups I have run with including fastest death, and most deaths per session, but also have charters that lived along time.)

[Tor]

That "many" is in the minority in the hobby.

I'm doubtful the majority of the people in the hobby use your 'rules guru' term, so lacking that, they would see the virtues you call 'guru' in those they call 'lawyer'. Now, perhaps we can not focus on imaginary statistics that can't be supported.

35+ years in the hobby and I have only ever seen 2 out of the one hundred (2% is an awful low percentage wouldnt you say?) of RLs I have had the displeasure of dealing with not balk at a loophole they initially utilized being used against them. (Most people hate being hoist by their own petard).

Your statistics don't matter since they are subjectively based on people you choose to label as a rules lawyer. Since you don't even apply this term to your 'gurus' (whom others may call 'lawyer') the statistics would obviously be warped. I'm actually confused at how you label a non-balking lawyer, what other diagnostic criteria is used?

Players can vote with their feet. But... there is a reason players far out number GMs. No one else wants the headaches involved with the job.

GMs don't much enjoy the headaches either and would want to diminish them by being clear with PCs about rules to avoid upsetting them.

RLs are capable of being quiet, and of voicing their opinions without shouting. They can attempt to make points without drowning out opposition.

my 35+ years of experience in the hobby as a player and 30+ years as a GM (of multiple systems) says they cant.

Untrue, all people are capable of being quiet and voicing opinions without shouting, and since RLs are people, they are also capable of that.

If you happen to judge people to be RLs on the basis of a perceived tendency to be loudmouthed then obviously those you count as RLs will exhibit that tendency. On a related note, if the only true Scotsman is one who wears a kilt, then all Scottish men wear kilts.

Like it or not the Term Rules Lawyer is a pejorative and has been for over 35+ years.

The status of words as pejoratives are subjective to their use. Much like 'munchkin', it has a strong negative association, but in either case can be (and has been) 'taken back' and used positively. I think rules lawyer has had that response even moreso than munchkin, since it conveys knowledge moreso than habit.

For every one positive type there are 10 negative ones. (and it only takes one negative to cancel the works of 10 positives).

I'm really not getting where your math comes from here.

The term has too much inertia at this point to be changed.

Psh, if peopel can attempt to re-appropriate various F/G/N/Q words, I hardly think RL is that cemented in place.

Many positive type RLs have taken the route that Power Gamers and Optimizers have of adopting a new term to represent them.

Neither of those terms need be inherently negative. Nor is there anything negative about being a lawyer. People may choose to simply redefine a word by what it should properly mean, rather than flee to new ones as old terms are unjustly corrupted.

The terms Rules Guru, GMs Assistant, and Rules Master have been bandied about to represent the positive players.

Seems silly to me. Lawyer shouldn't be a bad word. Someone should not have to be a 'Guru' or 'Master', as if those have nicer meanings. I recall 'Masters' being rather evil vampires, and the 'Love Guru' to be a sillihead.

Of those only one doesnt carry slight negative overtones and yet aptly describes the personality traits.

Master is too vague to describe a personality trait, and Lawyers have no defined personality traits.

your choices are limited... Either rail against 35+ years of established dogma (and in all likely hood fail) or change the term with which you identify yourself.

Fleeing to new terms is the cowardly route, to allow RL to remain pejorative is an assault on lawyers, and caters to negative stereotypes against them. I may as well spit in Daredevil's eye.

Dog said that not me.

Weird... not sure how I mixed that up, sorry.

its ok for the players to bully the GM? (which is exactly what the Rules Lawyer does... Bully the GM with a show of their "system mastery" and the unspoken threat of "my way or I will ruin your rep" ) Double standard much?

I don't accept that a Rules Lawyer is inherently being a bully by bringing attention to rules. A GM's reputation is hardly going to be ruined by forgetting a rule and having a player remind them of it. GM rep is more about what you can create and how you deal with players, not rote memorization. Too many negative assumptions being associated with a simple term. Lawyer simply means someone who knows the law and can speak for it.

[Daeglan]

Why are you arguing for 6 pages on rules lawyers?

[kaid]

Why are you arguing for 6 pages on rules lawyers?

Irony?

[Tor]

Not exactly, rules lawyers MAY argue at length, but they may be brief. The capacity to argue rules doesn't mean one actually does, it depends on when situations call for their need.

[Athos]

The moral of the story is that GM's make Rules Lawyers. Treat your players with respect, expect them to treat you with respect, and you'll be fine.

--flatline

I like this, I would say bad GM's though, not GM's, but that is me being too literal

What kills me is there are GMs out there that are proud of NOT knowing a lot of the rules for the game they are running. It's like you are supposed to guess what rules you are playing by today, and if you complain, they make a snide rules lawyer comment to you and say their game is more about "story". Funny thing is these games usually have the worst storylines and the players tend to be bogarted by the "story".

[Qev]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

[Dog_O_War]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

Neither is the government, but the rules are there for a reason.

It's just a shame that so many people can't be bothered to learn why.

[Alrik Vas]

A person's understanding of the rules in Palladium is tenuous at best. The rules change between settings and printings. Even keeping up with the most recent doesn't automatically say you understand them, especially if you misinterperate then.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

I'd say that ALL games are about the rules.

[Tor]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

Wrong, RPGs with rules are about rules, as rules define the reality your character exists in. The effectiveness with which you can roleplay a character is compromised if you don't understand the rules of the character's dimension as well as your character does. The actions a player takes in combat, the tactics they use in battle, these are all influenced by rules, which should influence a character's choices based on what they think is the best strategy.

All games are about fun

I dunno, if we look at a lot of pro sports, for them it's about money, maybe fun for the fans. Half the time the fans seem more angry and are basing their sense of pride on the game rather than having fun with it. Identity may exceed entertainment at times with games.

[Qev]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all. Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules. And Palladium has a lot of those, some of which are silly.

The rules are there to help create a play structure, but they're not absolutely required. I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

Wrong, RPGs with rules are about rules, as rules define the reality your character exists in. The effectiveness with which you can roleplay a character is compromised if you don't understand the rules of the character's dimension as well as your character does. The actions a player takes in combat, the tactics they use in battle, these are all influenced by rules, which should influence a character's choices based on what they think is the best strategy.

All games are about fun

I dunno, if we look at a lot of pro sports, for them it's about money, maybe fun for the fans. Half the time the fans seem more angry and are basing their sense of pride on the game rather than having fun with it. Identity may exceed entertainment at times with games.

No the setting define the reality your characters exists in not the rules, I could as easy run a adventure with ravenloft being the setting, with rules from bts, tsr, gurps, traveller ,or marvel super heroes, or just use my own rules.so the rules are just not that important.
As for fun, most fans lose sight on the important things one of them being fun.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rules lawyers are unpopular because role-playing games aren't about the rules.

I'd say that ALL games are about the rules.

All games are about fun but rules structure that fun.

I've played plenty of games that weren't fun.
I've never played a game without any rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all. Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules. And Palladium has a lot of those, some of which are silly.

Or you're implying that official rules can be picked and decided on by group decision.

The rules are there to help create a play structure, but they're not absolutely required. I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Not even Rule 0?

[Vrykolas2k]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all. Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules. And Palladium has a lot of those, some of which are silly.

The rules are there to help create a play structure, but they're not absolutely required. I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Actually, Rule 0 is, "The GM over-rules all, within reason".

[DhAkael]

"237. Not allowed to use more than 3 words per game that the GM has to look up the definition.
238. My bard cannot play or has ever heard of the theremin, didgeridoo or glass armonica.
239. My rockerboy cannot play or has ever heard of the theremin, didgeridoo or glass armonica.
240. Any character with more than three skills specializing in chainsaw is vetoed.
241. Cannot use the jedi mind trick to get out of a speeding ticket.
242. Not allowed to give quicklings Mountain Dew.
243. Cannot cast haste on the king during a long winded speech to get him to hurry the hell up.
244. Not allowed to taunt the rest of the party in 8 different languages because they forgot to take any.
245. Not allowed to attend any opera whose name the GM confuses with a strip joint.
246. I cannot keep selling that creepy guy's always naked elf chick to nomads every chance I get.
247. If the king rewards me with a forest, I am to assume he intends for me to keep it a forest.
248. There is no Halfling god of groin shots.
249. If a black op requires me to impersonate an employee, I cannot bill the target for overtime.
250. Superfluous Man is not a viable superhero concept.
251. I am not the Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy of Gundam Wing Z."

~From Mr. Welches' list of things no longer allowed in an RPG.
Sadly #1 on the list isn't "I will not nag natter at annoy or otherwise disrupt the GM or rest of the players with my assinine nit picking."

[Athos]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all. Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules. And Palladium has a lot of those, some of which are silly.

The rules are there to help create a play structure, but they're not absolutely required. I've RP'd plenty of times without any ruleset at all.

Actually, Rule 0 is, "The GM over-rules all, within reason".

This reminds me of a kid on OpenRPG... he couldn't be bothered to learn the rules (other than GM is all powerful of course) to any games, so he made up his own game. Which conveniently doesn't have any written down rules to get in his way. He sets up a room on the Unshaped server and waits for weeks for someone to wander in. And, what is so funny is that he is always surprised when noone takes him up on his offer to run a game for them.

Just goes to show, you can be an all powerful, RPG GM, but if noone wants to give you any authority, you just sit there wondering why you are alone. If you don't believe me, stop in and ask Condor sometime... although in all fairness, I think he finally did find one player.

[Tor]

The only rule in RPGs that really matters is Rule 0 - the GM overrules all.

Such a rule is not necessary. If a GM says "I want to run an HP-only game" and the two players say "no, we want to run a game where living things also have SDC" then why should the GM overrule them? Sure, the GM can opt not to GM, but the players can also opt not to play. It's not so much that you can't disagree with a GM or overrule them, just that you need to get other players on your side so that the GM has more incentive to agree with a stance, as more participants in the campaign are wagered.

Otherwise you're implying that you must follow every rule in every published book of the game you have access to, because those are the rules.

Hardly, it might be that it's the GM who wants to play by-the-book and it's the players who want to use a house rule (like "we all want to ignore the minus 10 to dodge lasers") in which case there is no such implication of mandatory obedience to rules through disobedience to GM.

No the setting define the reality your characters exists in not the rules

The rules are part of the setting. If you change the rules, you are changing the setting. Settings are created through a combination of numerical statistics, written word, pictures and imagination.

The new RUE Earth where a line walker can grab 20 PPE a melee from a ley lins is a VERY different Earth from the RMB Earth where they could only do so every hour or so. Flowery prose is not the only factor that creates a reality. A massive change that line influences the very nature of tactics in magical warfare, and the ability of spellcasters to sustain their communities and earn a living. How much milk and bread can a line walker conjure in an hour to feed a community of dozens? How many pints of blood can his healing restore? This can't be ignored.

I could as easy run a adventure with ravenloft being the setting, with rules from bts, tsr, gurps, traveller ,or marvel super heroes, or just use my own rules.so the rules are just not that important. As for fun, most fans lose sight on the important things one of them being fun.

Fun is dependent on the setting and whether or not a player likes it. The setting definitely changes based on the rules you use to define it. Regardless of which ruleset you use, the statistics you give something, for example, determine how much of a threat it is, and threats (and abilities relevant to demands) are major creators of world feels.

Just because you did not have fun does not mean games are not about fun.

The meaning of games and any other kind of past-time is essentially dependent upon the meanings we assign to them. How is the interpretation of "play Rifts for fun" any more legitimate than "play Rifts to learn math" or "play Rifts to practice English" or "play Rifts to make friends" or "play Rifts to get drunk" or "play Rifts to flirt with that cute GM"?

The meaning of games is traditionally fun, sure, and I think that's why most do it, but it's still a subjective issue.

When one plays a game for rules one has lost sight of the fun they should be having durning a game.

Having the reasons dictated to players why they SHOULD be playing isn't very fun.

Sadly #1 on the list isn't "I will not nag natter at annoy or otherwise disrupt the GM or rest of the players with my assinine nit picking."

From a player's perspective, they might view a GM ignorant of issues that demand "nit-picking" to be addressed as assinine/annoying in return, which is disrupting their own enjoyment. We must keep in mind the bias of viewpoints. Both parties risk ignoring the other's concerns.

If we eliminate shared variables such as "other person's an ass" or "other person's annoying" and politely zero in on the more relevant concerns, both parties would reach better understanding of the core issues. Like "are we communicating properly about the kind of game we're agreeing to play?"

[Noon]

I think 'The GM overrules all' must manage to not get rejected, because when we first run into RP as teenagers were used to not owning anything. If your parents say you can't watch the TV, well you don't own it, so you can't watch it. If they say you can't borrow the car, you don't own it. If they say you can't eat X food from the cupboard, well you didn't buy it.

So, not being used to owning anything, teenagers accept this thing called rule zero.

It's just the older you get, the harder you find it is to act like your the teenager and the adult at the end of the table, who is basically the same age as you, is the parent who decides whether you can use any of his stuff/rules. Eventually you grow up.

[Killer Cyborg]

When one plays a game for rules one has lost sight of the fun they should be having durning a game.

On what do you base your claim that games are about fun?
What level of fun should a person have during a game?

[flatline]

When one plays a game for rules one has lost sight of the fun they should be having durning a game.

On what do you base your claim that games are about fun?
What level of fun should a person have during a game?

As much as possible without detracting from the fun of others also playing the game or breaking the law?

--flatline

[wyrmraker]

I have had bad experiences with easily abusable Rule 0 - "the GM overrules all". An excellent example was a HU2 game we were playing. We had captured a couple members of an anti-mutant hate group, and the GM stated "He wills himself to death."
Needless to say, we argued this for a bit until the GM stated "I am making a GM call here. It works, that's the end of it." At that point we closed our notebooks, I turned on the game console and asked "Who wants to play some Halo?"

Therefore the house rule here (we game at my house) is that any GM Call or House Rule must make sense to everyone in the group. There must be a sensible explanation to the entire group.

[flatline]

I have had bad experiences with easily abusable Rule 0 - "the GM overrules all". An excellent example was a HU2 game we were playing. We had captured a couple members of an anti-mutant hate group, and the GM stated "He wills himself to death."
Needless to say, we argued this for a bit until the GM stated "I am making a GM call here. It works, that's the end of it." At that point we closed our notebooks, I turned on the game console and asked "Who wants to play some Halo?"

Therefore the house rule here (we game at my house) is that any GM Call or House Rule must make sense to everyone in the group. There must be a sensible explanation to the entire group.

What if the GM knows something that the players don't know yet? Is he allowed to rule appropriately without explaining it to the players even though the ruling might not make sense (yet) to the players?

--flatline

[wyrmraker]

I have had bad experiences with easily abusable Rule 0 - "the GM overrules all". An excellent example was a HU2 game we were playing. We had captured a couple members of an anti-mutant hate group, and the GM stated "He wills himself to death."
Needless to say, we argued this for a bit until the GM stated "I am making a GM call here. It works, that's the end of it." At that point we closed our notebooks, I turned on the game console and asked "Who wants to play some Halo?"

Therefore the house rule here (we game at my house) is that any GM Call or House Rule must make sense to everyone in the group. There must be a sensible explanation to the entire group.

What if the GM knows something that the players don't know yet? Is he allowed to rule appropriately without explaining it to the players even though the ruling might not make sense (yet) to the players?

--flatline

I understand your point, but he did it just to keep us from interrogating the guy. Our GM is extremely predictable. And this was the commander of the local anti-mutant group. And he 'willed himself to death' after being brought back from the dead (chomped a cyanide tooth) and then Resurrected by the Demon Lord.

[flatline]

I have had bad experiences with easily abusable Rule 0 - "the GM overrules all". An excellent example was a HU2 game we were playing. We had captured a couple members of an anti-mutant hate group, and the GM stated "He wills himself to death."
Needless to say, we argued this for a bit until the GM stated "I am making a GM call here. It works, that's the end of it." At that point we closed our notebooks, I turned on the game console and asked "Who wants to play some Halo?"

Therefore the house rule here (we game at my house) is that any GM Call or House Rule must make sense to everyone in the group. There must be a sensible explanation to the entire group.

What if the GM knows something that the players don't know yet? Is he allowed to rule appropriately without explaining it to the players even though the ruling might not make sense (yet) to the players?

--flatline

I understand your point, but he did it just to keep us from interrogating the guy. Our GM is extremely predictable. And this was the commander of the local anti-mutant group. And he 'willed himself to death' after being brought back from the dead (chomped a cyanide tooth) and then Resurrected by the Demon Lord.

Ha! Sounds like abandoning the game was the correct course of action.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

When one plays a game for rules one has lost sight of the fun they should be having durning a game.

On what do you base your claim that games are about fun?
What level of fun should a person have during a game?

I base it on entertainment value.

By all means elaborate.
Are you saying that because you have fun with games, that fun is necessarily the sole primary purpose of games for everybody, always?
Or that because games tend to have entertainment value, that entertainment must be a necessary component for everybody, in all games?

The level of fun one should have durning game should be based upon the amount of entertainment they seek.

What if they don't seek entertainment, and are playing for other reasons?