Are rules lawyers literally the worst kind of player in any game?
>>48199167
No, players who try and betray the rest of the party for no character reason are.
>>48199167
>>48199197
They are bad but I personally believe that fluff lawyers deserve their own circle of hell.
>>48199167
I've played reasonably pleasant games with rules lawyers.
In my experience the worst type of player is the person who's been playing 3.P for too long and thinks roleplaying requires having a specific number to reference for every little thing you want to try to do.
Not by a mile.
People who drag others into their magical realm are unfailingly worse.
>>48199167
Depends on when they make their case. If they're interrupting the game to present arguments, then they're in the "very disruptive" category of players. The ones that send a couple of e-mails a week explaining how they viewed past and anticipated rulings aren't really a problem.
>>48199167
[*nasally nerd voice*]
It says right here on p.58 of the /tg/ Rules Lawyers supplement that "Rules Lawyers are only the worst kind of player on Tuesdays and Saturdays in July". So while you're [*znerk*] "technically correct", at least for purposes of this post, overall, no, they actually aren't.
[*smug grin*]
>>48199167
>Are rules lawyers literally the worst kind of player in any game?
no, the worst player in the game is the guy who has GM'd the game for years, house-ruled the shit out of it, and rules lawyers from THOSE sets of rules, and due to playing for so long with those rules, THINKS they are official rules so he doesn't tell you about them and expects you to know about them.
>>48199263
>fluff lawyers
That's a new one.
>>48200397
I've heard of those before as "a lore purist".
>>48200429
I hate those. Especially when they argue lore that their character cannot/did not/should not know.
>>48200243
You joke about this kind of thing but I've had players like this.
>>48199167
Nope, I just terminate them till their clones get the message. Rules arguments are treason, citizen.
>>48199976
This. Rules lawyers can be useful if you genuinely need to know what the rules are. Fetish shitters are always cancer.
>>48201156
I thought just knowing the rules was treason, as the book with actual mechanics was above clearance?
Paranoia is great
Rules Lawyer: someone who makes bad GMs extremely butthurt by actually knowing the rules of the game
>>48199167
Only if you have GM who cares about what the official rules are and doesn't waive rules at the drop of a hat when necessary. That shuts down any rules lawyering very quickly.
>>48200243
I can feel my body temperature rising. My butt's already blasted
>>48203124
I could catch a fish with that kinda bait.
>>48202988
Based Paranoia
>>48202988
Well, no. The rules are ULTRAVIOLET clearance. So once you have promoted your RED clearance troubleshooter to ULTRAVIOLET, you will be free to study rules and mission description at lengths. Don't you feel blessed by the generosity of FRIEND COMPUTER, citizen?
>I said: DON'T YOU FEEL BLESSED???
>>48200243
"Right, so next time we just hold the game at [other anon's] house without telling him. Let's see if we can rope one of our cousins into playing his character or something (assuming he was even important)."
>>48199167I made this thread about MtGThere was literally like half an hour wasted over rules lawyering about stuff that wasn't even happeningand "proper play" in a casual game
>>48202988
No it's only teason if you get caught. You're meant to read it and lie if asked.
Which is actually a really good way to do to be honest.
>>48200397
>Actually, Anon, your paladin would never take that feat because every holy warrior of the high church learns to fight with both hands, so obviously you should be investing in tfw.
>>48203767
>cheating in a game
>Get told you are cheating
>fuck you its supposed to work REEEEEE
You play by how the cards are written you retard, if you fuck up and its casual enough go back and do it right, but you dont get to outright cheat because you cant read.
>>48203827
no like
rules lawyering in the middle of the game about theoretical situations that weren't actually happening and weren't going to happen
>>48203840
Just say hang the digression and continue playing.
Get some assertiveness.
>>48199167
No, Randumbs and Spehsal Snowflakes then Munchkins and in fourth Rules Lawyers.
Not including the actual type of neckbeard or man child which exists independent of what makes a shitty player.
>>48203864
it happened repeatedly
the rules lawyer was an actual neckbeard who crowed about playing for fun then nitpicked everyone over shit like where they put their exile pile
>>48200378
Oh god, I thought I blocked that out...
>>48199167
They're not the worst but they're pretty bad. Worse are inconsistent rules lawyers, and even worse then that are inconsistent rules lawyer GM's.
For instance...
>I want to do this awesome thing
>The rules say you can't
>An npc did the exact same awesome thing three rounds ago
>I'm the GM
>Okay, I'll do this other awesome thing
>You can't do that, it's not physically possible.
>But the rules say I can do it.
>I'm the GM.
Pic related is the best kind of rules lawyer
>>48202910
>Rules lawyers can be useful if you genuinely need to know what the rules are.
A rules expert can be helpful. A rules lawyer isn't just trying to make things happen by the book, though. A lawyer is trying to argue for a specific client, in this analogy themselves, not apply the law fairly and evenly to everyone - that's the judge and jury's job. So a rules lawyer is someone who tries to argue the rulebook /to their benefit/, not just in general.
>>48203966
Pissing off people who abuse the rules by throwing those rules back in their face is one of the best feelings about any tabletop game.
>>48200429
>>48200468
>>48203822
Fucking I know, right? Unless it's a super serious game that's very ingrained in the lore/setting, just fucking let me play my casual game for fun.
It's because of that asshole why I've never had a chance to play L5R even once. Because if it's a game that he's in or runs, I just know I'll get killed for stupid reasons all because I'm not used to all the different set pieces across the different books or have them memorized.
>>48203966
>Lawful Good versus Lawful Evil.
>>48203966
What's the story here?
>>48204001
Long story short.
Kid in white shirt built a stupid army list consisting entirely of biker units that all start in reserve. Smiling guy set up his army all along the table edge, thus meaning that the kid's units couldn't enter play without touching one of them. Thus, all of the kid's units are technically destroyed, and the smiling guy win's automatically on turn one.
>>48202988
Knowing the rules at RED clearance is a treason. Arguing with the GM is also a treason. Therefore rules arguments are DOUBLE treason and grounds for immediate termination.
>>48204001
Guy with the book was a bit of a dick and kept his entire army (white scars) in reserve, planning on deploying it after seeing the smiling guys army placement (Tau, so book guy assumed gun line). Smiling guy had a shit tonne of Scouts and infiltrated the whole board uncontested, being given the win by territory.
>>48199167
I've been described as a rules lawyer, but Im actually a rules mentat. I just remember rules, for every damn game ive ever played. Its actually pretty annoying sometimes, imagine the important things i could remember if all my brain space wasnt filled with rules forn games long gone.
in any case its contextual. Rules lawyering in an rpg or a story driven wargame is usually (but not always) a dick move.
Rules lawyering in a competitive wargame or in any boardgame is usually (but again not always) fine.
Its game, group and scenario dependent.
>>48199167
No, GMs who can't be bothered by following the rules are. If you don't want to read and make the game work like everyone should expect it to then go play some freeform shit at a forum. If you must add houserules, they should be explained and written out before character creation.
>>48203767
Git gud scrub
>>48199167
>in any game?
No, in Nomic, which literally means 'Law' and is basically Robert's rules of order turned into an RPG, the more rules lawyers there are the better the game will be. There is no rule of cool, and if one were passed it would likely be repealed quickly.
![901[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8dZ0oEX.jpg "901[1].jpg")
>>48199167
If a rules lawyer is simply insisting on clarity around certain rules, then the problem lies with the rules and those who wrote them. 3.5e for example is notorious for rules that are unclear or downright self-contradictory. He has the right to make his case before the DM declares the new rule through DM fiat.
If he's just trying to argue around clear and established rules for his benefit, he's an asshole that needs to be shut up.
>>48204028
>Thus, all of the kid's units are technically destroyed, and the smiling guy win's automatically on turn one.
God I'd having a shit eating grin too.
When rules make fun shit or wacky outcomes, like the peasant railgun or other fun things, they provide an interesting challenge to DMs and can be fun, if used only every so often.
>>48204066
Why is it always Tau players?
>>48204774
The peasant railgun always pissed me off because it relies on selective use of real-world physics.
If you actually follow the rules of the game last commonor is just making a ranged attack with an throw improvised weapons.
You try to apply real-world physics _it simply wouldn't work to begin with_.
You can just tell a rules lawyer no, at least they know the rules. Guys who make no effort to improve their shockingly vague understanding of the rules are worse.
>>48205532
Excuse me, but my "vague" understanding of the rules always works out in my favor.
Not a single time did I interpret rules in a manner that failed to benefit me.
It's not like it's even cheating because it's the DM's job to double-check the rules, not the player's.
>tips fedora
>>48205558
Having to have the DM explain how basic mechanics work every time you have to roll them is not working in anyone's favour and I don't think anyone has ever argued that.
>>48200397
Play some White Wolf games and you'll run into them.
Fuck, I would deal with the RAWtard people a hundred times before I have to deal again with the guy who constantly "well actually"s the ST and complains loudly that what just happened is impossible because of [Obscure fluff reason X].
Let the GM fucking do his thing, man.
>>48200397
Fluff lawyers are why I avoid established settings.
>tfw you keep reminding the GM people being encumbered, hurt, skill penalties, seldomly used rules and details to hinder your own party
That's what you get for not using the coasters, faggits.
>>48205931
I always remind the GM of penalties and seldom used rules and I don't care if that penalizes another PC. To be fair, I also do that to the detriment of my own PC. Also, I don't make a fuss if the GM goes, "Yeah, you're right but I think I'll keep ignoring that rule in my game."
My reminders offer the GM choice.
>>48204001
>>48205588
Yup, had a game of OWoD Mage crash to a halt after a discussion that took the best part of two sessions (And near constant debating in the group chat between the sessions) on whether it would be acceptable for an Islamic character to pray on a private jet...
>>48203984
B-b-b-but L5R is a game that's very ingrained in its lore/setting. Playing "Murderhobos and Mayhem" in the setting will get you killed super quick as starting PCs are not superheroes compared to everyone else.
as a gm, i run homebrew settings to prevent lore nazis, and judicious application of gm fiat to keep lawyers in their place
the players i hate the most are the ones the lumps that just sit by doing little or nothing to contribute to the game, then when they do decide to participate they get outrageously offended that anything bad consequences come from their barely present roleplaying
>>48204774
The peasant railgun does not work, we've been over this. It doesn't work by RAW, and it doesn't work with real world physics. Stop bringing it up.
>>48203966
>>48204028
>>48204066
>>48206158
I wonder if this was the specific moment that that GW decided that armies must deploy something during setup.
No. Players who know the RAW well and advocate for their usage are of great value and must be protected.
It's the guys who refuse to accept "Both your DM and Jeremy Crawford think your reading is bullshit so sit down and play because this is the only 4-hour block that all 6 of us have open for 2 weeks and we are by-God going to make the most of it" that deserve a horrific form of execution reserved only for them.
>>48199167
Attention whores are worse than lawyers. So is the 4clever8you type of metagamer.
The problem is that they tend to be the same that guy.
>>48199167
No, murderhobos who don't give a shit about anything other than being LULRANDUMB and showing how funny they are, they're objectively the worst. A rules lawyer can still enjoy a plot or narrative. A murderhobo only delights in ruining everything for everyone.
>>48199976
>>48202910
Does this really happen? I mean, we joke about it on /tg/, but ....does it really happen at the gaming table?
As for rules lawyers, yeah, they're annoying. It's good to have someone who really knows the rules, but if they have 0 skill in diplomacy at the table, they're annoying.
>>48203124
Rule Zero, bitch.
"Actually, on page 43, it clearly says that when attacking a prone target..."
"Yeah. That doesn't make sense to me."
"No, but it says right here...
"No, I see it, but that's not how I'm playing it."
"You... you can't do that! It's written right here! You can't change the rules!"
"I'm invoking rule zero, which trumps the other rules."
"That's bullshit! It's right here in the book!"
"Please turn to page 3 and read the 3rd paragraph in the second column--the bit about the everything being changeable as desired by the GM."
"Yeah, but..."
"Your argument is clearly in violation of that passage."
"But it says on page 43..."
"And what it says on page 3 trumps that. Now make your attack with the modifiers I described or don't, but I'm through wasting time arguing about this."
>>48209118
You're doing it wrong. Rule zero is for when the rules get in the way of the players enjoying the game. Not for the GM to say "No, I don't care what the rules say, you can't do that." unless it's something that would genuinely hurt everyone's experience.
IF THE BOY HAS NO LAWYER
>>48209118
Perfect pic for that. Weirdly enough, I was thinking about that scene yesterday for some weird reason.
Once upon a time, players loved and respected the GM, and there was no "well if I'd known that, I would've built my character differently/done things differently/had my mom drop me off at a different game store" etc.
Just....play the damn game. I promise I will make it fun for you if you stop being my fucking adversary at the table.
>>48209118
>muh story
The real problem with rule lawyering is that it's inversely powered when compared to video RPGs. In every single type of videogame, you get exceptional bonuses for having knowledge of the before hand. You get gear you would have missed. You get better stats that do more damage. You can fight effectively against hard enemies before you ordinarily should have. The same principles apply to a tabletop RPG except the rules are inherently looser, thus easier to abuse for both parties. As a result, people who play videogames have the dark souls megatwink mentality. They want a level 1 character with end game gear that lets them do insane damage before they should because they can. In tabletop rpgs, the enemies are designed by a human in text and implemented by another human, also in text, and interpreted by a third set of humans reacting to it. If chad thundercock and his rapesteed have their way, he'll breeze through everything but the most awful enemy just by having strong knowledge of the rules, and while that's an asset, to an extent, you never tell a video game that it's wrong. You play by the rules you are given, and that's the way it should be. Sure, you can patch things ad hoc, but in game rule lawyering for the sake of rule lawyering is just obnoxious.
>>48209330
Just play Paranoia until they get over that mentality.
>>48209186
I love it when rules lawyers do a 180 and start arguing the spirit of things. Rule zero places the power of decision in the GM's hands and underlines the fact that the rules are subordinate to their judgment. A GM can absolutely say "I don't care what the rules say; you can't do that". It's well within his power. Now, if he's being a dick and shutting down players without good reason, they can certainly have a discussion with him about it after the session is over, and walk out on him if worst comes to worst, but the GM's authority is final in the game he's running. And that's the way it should be.
>>48209264
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I'm not sure you do either.
>>48209374
Yes, the GM's word is the law and all that. That doesn't mean you're not a bad GM for misusing that power.
>>48209486
>That doesn't mean you're not a bad GM for misusing that power.
Sure. But it's not like a book can't get things wrong too.
>hey I came up with this highly effective tactic using the game rules
>uhh rule zero, you cant use that because I didn't think of it myself
>but this is perfectly legit and this is my character's main fighting style, he can't fight well without it
>no shut up holy shit you fucking rules lawyer YOU'RE KICKED OUT LEAVE REEEEE
>>48209118
>Rule Zero, bitch.
Do you know that rules zero basically just change the rules of the book are law, to the rules of the dm are law?
You basically just change from a lawyer arguing with a judge about the laws, to a kid arguing with his father about what he really must do
>>48209557
Hence why I said "misusing" not "using".
>>48199167
The worst players are those that don't pay attention to the game. They'll sit there on there phones, ignoring everything except when they're called on in a combat turn order. Any time they're outside of combat they'll passive-aggressively urge the rest of the group to "hurry up" or blatantly state "I'm bored, can we move on to the fight?"
Those players are seriously the worst thing in gaming.
>>48199167
I don't think that it is too bad as long as they are consistent, calling out everyone equally instead of intentionally breaking the rules themselves and calling out everyone else. What can really be irksome is in a crunchier system when the game grinds to a halt because they are forcing everyone to look something up.
>>48203966
>Mono Kroot tau army
I guess it isn't all bad
>>48209118
If you're just going to make up bullshit whenever you want, what's the point of having rules at all? You're abusing "the GM is always right" not to enhance everyone's good time, but to justify not only your poor grasp of the rules, but your outright refusal to learn them.
No one wants to play in a stupid magical fairy land where all the rules change based on the GM's almighty whim. Have fun shrieking "MUH RULE ZEROOOOO!" at an empty table jackass.
>>48209118
This is exactly the sort of person who whines about "rules lawyers": asshole DM who doesn't want rules getting in the way of his power trip.
Rules lawyers and optimizers are (mostly) the same type of scum that are just afraid to play games which have hard-bordered rules and consequences, because you can't really "lose" a TTRPG but you can "win harder" by being a pedantic dick, and ruining everyone's time. ITS NOT WRONG TO PLAY WELL they will cry while completely missing that games with human resolution systems are not and can never be objective pursuits. Sorry scrubs.
You see these brilliant souls shrivel up in any game which has a clear win/loss condition that is enforced by a neutral system (aka, videogames, etc).
Functionally, what rules lawyering and optimizing are about is the fear of losing. Because losing is unfun. Once you realize that, it's pretty easy to control those types.
>>48203775
Not true as a player I found not knowing the rules at all gave the GM instant credibility allowing me to focus on other non-treasonous thoughts.
It also has a sort of Mystique to the whole affair tho it does say something along the lines "we know your going to read it and lie because your a horrible person" that didn't mean yes read it just make sure and lie about it.
>>48199167
No. Assholes are the worst kind of player to have.
Some assholes may be rules lawyers, but not all rules lawyers are assholes.
>>48206786
Yeah I get that, but I'm still a complete newbie who isn't used to playing essentially a game of bureaucracy. I'm the kind of person who'd tend to try to do things that are right instead of always following the law of the land and courts. I'm the kind of person who, if we were playing a modern game set in a police department, I'd be a cowboy cop.
I'm not asking for rules to be bent, I just want a chance to learn. I can absorb rules and crunch easily from the rulebooks, but I'm better at learning lore/setting through experiencing it.
>>48208665
I have seen it happen quite a few times. It is uncommon, but not rare by any means. It mostly happens with younger players who haven't figured out how to get laid and thus too horny for their own good.
>Play GURPS.
>"Nope, sorry, we're not using that rule now, we'll see about it after we're done with this session."
Problem solved.
>>48211364
Read the goddamn books, take Etiquette and Courtier at reasonable levels, and if you have doubts ask to make rolls about shit your character should know by virtue of having high skills in that area.
>>48199167
The way to deal with rules lawyers and powergamers is to make enemies exactly as capable as players.
You want to be a half-giant with a spiked chain who specializes in trip attacks? Okay, sure. Oh look, here's a whole tribe of fire giants that does the same thing. They're the main enemy in this setting.
>>48211660
It does make sense. Why wouldn't the people of the world do things that are effective?
>>48211716
My favorite DM is a former powergamer who counters cheese with cheese, but otherwise doesn't bring it into the game.
>>48199167
Depends on the type of game, but generally the rules decide which actions you can and cannot take. If you do something that's against the rules you're the one making the mistake.
>>48210539
My groups have pretty much always been strong believers in GM authority (granted, that's a viewpoint I helped cultivate in many of them). Tying a GM's hands does little to prevent a bad GM from being bad, and just gets in the way of a good GM. This is not a war game where strict adherence to the rules is necessitated by the fact that you have opposed parties vying for supremacy and likely no neutral arbiter. A GM is there to run the game, so let him do his job. Anybody who would throw a shit-fit over that is not somebody I'd want at my table anyway.
>>48210811
>asshole DM who doesn't want rules getting in the way of his power trip.
A GM doing his job isn't a power trip. You're confusing having authority with the abuse of authority.
>>48212404
>A GM doing his job isn't a power trip. You're confusing having authority with the abuse of authority.
"Take a -10 penalty to this check because I say so" is not GM doing his job.
>>48206554
How is that relevant when it comes to World of Darkness? I suppose it would be fine as long as it is in sync with the correct time to pray and it is okay to move around the plane at that time.
>>48212451
>"Take a -10 penalty to this check because I say so" is not GM doing his job.
Also, a GM sexually molesting his players is probably out of bounds, but what's your point?
>>48212703
That you should read the reply chain you're posting into. Spontaneously saying mid-game "no, we're not using that rule because I think it's unrealistic." is the GM doing his job badly.
>>48212404
>Well MY group--
Stop. Just stop right there. No one cares what you've brainwashed your group of spineless chucklefucks into believing. Not only is that anecdotal evidence, but you're most likely lying through your damn teeth just so you won't lose an argument on the internet.
>>48212811
I was responding to: "Have fun shrieking "MUH RULE ZEROOOOO!" at an empty table jackass." "Anecdotal evidence" of what happens at my table is very much pertinent to what happens at my table, dipshit.
>>48212896
Don't lie. You don't have a group.
Nah, the worst would be magical realmers. But rules lawyers are up there.
t. former rules lawyer
>>48212451
Just wait until you have a GM impose a -6 penalty to a close combat attack with a human because the human you play as is a few inches shorter,plus your character is female
>>48212778
>Spontaneously saying mid-game "no, we're not using that rule because I think it's unrealistic." is the GM doing his job badly.
If the GM doesn't adjust modifiers based on the situation, he isn't doing his job. The example I provided is loosely based on a situation I saw one time. Going by the RAW, it was easier to hit a prone person if you were using melee weapons, but harder to hit if you were using ranged weapons. And that kind of makes sense if you're at a distance. But the guy was at point blank range, where lying down didn't do much to lessen his silhouette and served only to restrict his ability to dodge. Hence an attack bonus made more sense than an attack penalty.
>>48212451
But "Take a -10 penalty because you're trying to shoot a guy while on top of a running train in the middle of a rainstorm" is the GM doing his job.
>>48212949
This. At least a rules lawyer can solve a legitimate rules query or dispute once in a blue moon.
>>48213133
See >>48212995
It's the GM doing his job, no matter how much you want to strawman the issue.
>>48212995
None of which you managed to mention in your so-called example.
rather have a rules lawyer than a fag or a mutant, to be honest
>>48206158
this brings me joy.
>muh powertripping GM
just play the game without the GM then, you cucks
contrary to popular belief, you are not actually required to have a GM
that's literally just a houserule some faggot back in the 70s invented and it stuck in the culture for some asinine reason
>>48211660
The problem then becomes, if you have one powergamer and three or four players who don't much care about optimization, you've just invalidated everyone but the powergamer.
If anything, you've just proved the powergamer right, because his character is all of a sudden the only one with a chance at survival.
>>48213565
>a houserule some faggot back in the 70s invented
Gary Gygax is now some faggot, you heard it here first
>>48208665
It happens approx 2000% more if you're a filthy online-roleplayer, it's much harder for your fat bearded GM friend Frank to describe how the heaving chitarii hive queen retracts her carapace to show her glistening eight breasts, while maintaining constant eye contact with you.
>>48213328
The example was a case of the GM making a ruling that overturned the text of an individual rule. There really doesn't need to be any more context than that. Nowhere in the example is there evidence that the GM is being unreasonable, and yet you chose to attack that particular strawman.
>>48212778
>Spontaneously saying mid-game "no, we're not using that rule because I think it's unrealistic." is the GM doing his job badly.
I'd still take it. If that rule never came up before and GM are (royal they) consistent about it from that point onward. I can understand that something was overseen and not discussed up front.
But when the rule interpretation changes multiple times over the course of the game, that's pure bullshit.
>>48213686
>There really doesn't need to be any more context than that.
There really, really does unless you want to come across as an unreasonable asshole.
>>48213704
>royal they
not a thing
>>48200397
I have a player who is consistently a rules lawyer when raw "could" be interpreted in a way that favours him, or a fluff lawyer when "it makes sense if you ignore X rules, and it works in-lore" even though raw explicitly denies it.
>>48213661
I don't give a fuck about Gary Gygax or his faggot friends
their opinion has literally no more weight than anyone else's
fuck off GMcuck
>>48213800
>>48213800
that's some next level, cutting edge bait you've got there anon
>>48212404
Rule 0 is retarded because most GM's are retarded. It's purpose is to make the game not get hung up on ambiguous rules situations and to allow the gm to work around instances that the rules don't cover, but every time I have ever seen it used was the gm saying "fuck you I'm the gm!"
One particularly egregious example is in a rogue trader game when a tyrranid trygon was burrowing underground and I had an attack. My GM said I was taking both the called shot penalty (as the tail was visible) as well a reduction on the size bonus to hit (as the tail was small). I attempted to explain that it was bullshit, as the called shot penalty WAS the size reduction penalty for trying to hit a smaller part of the creature, but I was lambasted for running contrary to the gm and took further penalties because of it.
The point is, maybe you should listen to your players reasons, or even the rules reasons behind certain bonuses or penalties before you use your flawed authority.
>>48213969
>>48213952
>using le edge meme that was invented by /v/
>using le bait meme that was invented by reddit
good argument
good argument
>>48209118
As a forever DM I hope that I never have you as a DM.
As both a GM and a powergamer//rules lawyer myself I don't hate other rules lawyers.
Any time we have a problem over rules the standing house rule applies...we play the session however I interpret the rules and then we argue afterwards about it.
If the rule in question drastically altered the encounter (this rarely happens, but sometimes it does.) I'll award the group extra loot or XP on the next encounter. This tends to keep most rules lawyers in check, and along with a healthy dose of GM law on occasion keeps the nights flowing.
The players I hate the most are the anti powergamers or the ones who don't pay attention. If someone at my table wants to powergame thats fine, I can find rules and situations that either negate or challenge them anyways while still staying somewhat in tow with the rest of the group. Personally I can't stand it when I get a whiny player who bitches the entire night about how "so and so is ruining the game by powergaming." To me, that dampens the night even moreso then the guy who cranked his AC up 10 points over everyone else.
>>48207767
It was. The rules changed pretty much immediately after.
>>48204217
And we found the rules lawyer. Good job guys.
>>48205303
You know hat else relies on selective use of real-world physics? Magic.
>>48209118
This is the part where whoever you're arguing with is eligible to take your book and note the "errata" there in a red marker. So the next time this comes up, everyone immediately knows what's what.
>>48199167
No, the worst kinds of people are those who intentionally fuck over other players and make the actions of their characters not function when it's inconvenient to their contrived train-like narratives to have a situation resolved through good use of a PC's play and kit.
>>48214911
Peasants aren't magic.
>>48203966
>>48206158
So basically...
>>48214970
D&D isn't the real world.
>>48213978
>single anecdote
>"hurr most gms r retarted xD"
You sound angry and fat.
>>48210539
>If you're just going to make up bullshit whenever you want
Why are you pretending that it's a binary choice between strict RAW and no rules at all?
>>48210889
Spot on. And because their ego and self-worth is wrapped up in it, they'll never let it go.
>>48204217
See the Golden Rule, which invests the authority to abrogate the rules as they see fit.
Every player knows this is part of the game. You have no excuse if you go into a game and don't expect it.
>inb4 wild, flailing Chicken Little strawmanning
>>48210889
>control those types
wew lad, that's pretty creepy
>>48215173
When DM's decide on rulings in the midst of decision making that screw over what PCs are trying to accomplish having been operating on the rules already listed and which the DM never amended prior, it sucks dick and is frankly annoying. When the DM constantly does so, I just leave games. Trying to roleplay and develop a character and accomplish what the character wants to given the rules for doing so is what people want in an RPG - when the rules consistently fluctuate in a way that screws over PCs - which many DMs do, whether because they're sadists who think of the game as "players vs DM" or because what the player character might accomplish goes against the grain of their established (in their head) narrative.
It's faggotry incarnate and nobody likes dealing with such stupid fuckery.
>>48215173
And you sound fat and retarded, but who's counting?
>>48214911
That's not the same thing and you know it.
>>48215548
The mad, apparently.
>>48199976
I dunno, it's kind of a trade-off. Rules lawyers are constantly pricks but very rarely make a valid point. Magic Realm creeps are fucking awful in fetishland, but not always terrible outside of that. It's like asking if you want to be stabbed once or have a few needles stuck into you every couple hours.
>>48215165
Peasants aren't magic in D&D either.
>>48215780
Tell that to the peasant railgun.
>>48216072
The peasant railgun that doesn't work?
Sure thing bro.
>>48216347
It works RAW and you know it queerbag. Free actions faggot.
>>48216545
Except RAW the final peasant would make a completely normal throwing attack, so no, it doesn't.
>>48216545
Free actions can only be taken while in combat. Every peasant would have to be in combat at the same time. Actual combat too, that means no mercenaries with feather dusters. And even if you managed that, it wouldn't do much because D&D doesn't have rules for damage by acceleration.
>>48216545
See >>48216692 and >>48216699
Even my son knows that.
>>48216699
"Actual combat", lel. Why don't you tell us what the PHB says about "actual" combat vs "not-actual combat"?
>>48216692
>>48216699
>>48216751
The point of the absurdity isn't damage by acceleration, it's accelerated travel of an object happening period by means of simply passing objects by base mechanical rules. You can take a copper coin from Neverwinter to Baldur's gate in seconds per the rules given enough people in a line.
>>48215026
god, this shit never fails to make me laugh.
if I was the maxx C player, I wouldn't even be mad, I'd be impressed.
>>48215246
mitigating other people's That Guy-ism is something we all learn to do. Poor choice of words tho, I admit.
>>48199167
>I'm a rules lawyer
I hate it, but I straight up can't stand when people abuse shit in tabletop, or make things harder on the players for no reason.
Makes it worse when the DM is just like "nah, it's fine, it gets people to learn the game by gaming it"
It's not fine fucker, he's turning into dragons every combat from like 7th level, and completely nullifies the rest of the party.
>>48217016
Git gud. You sucking is your fault.
I bet you took Skill Focus: Use Rope or some shit.
>>48217058
>skill focus:use rope
Duh, son.
Gotta get in on that shibari action.
Are you saying you don't take it?
How disgusting.
>>48217084
Bruh, Underwater Basket Weaving is the real chill. The BBEG will quake in his boots at the majesty of your craft.
>>48217058
I know it's a joke, but being able to weave baskets underwater IRL sounds cool as fuck.
>>48217224
I fell like if underwater porn is a thing underwater basket weaving contests should be too.
>>48215173
t. butthurt GMcuck and gary GAYgax worshipper-faggot
getting mad and salty and nerd cuck turk mad as fuck because he's being called out and owned and cucked and wrecked hard
go back to your nerd turk mad cuck hole, idiot millennial nerd mad cuck turk worm
>>48217383
>>48217454
>everyone who disagrees with me is a bait
typical millennial faggot response. die.
>>48211570
This. Oh my fucking God, THIS.
You want to play an in depth and interesting setting... doesn't read.
FUUUUUU.....
>>48218005
I'm not even trying to be an ass about it but that's the most Reddit response I've seen in weeks.
>>48218005
>an in depth and interesting setting
It's literally one white guy's stereotypical idea of Asia.
>>48216869
Yes, and as there are no rules for it doing damage that way. It would be pointless, sweaty and not fun for all involved. And you would probably have to pay most of those 887,040 peasants for the days work and travel to positions. (That number is based on an impossible straight line with no changes in elevation or curvature of the planet or roads.)
So enjoy paying at least 87,000 gp for the equivalent of teleporting a copper piece a little over 800 miles.
Knowing the rules means knowing what they don't cover as well as knowing what they cover. GMs are there for that and that is why Rule Zero is key. To stop foolish players from trying to make rules just to suit them, instead of trying to balance it with the setting and other rules.
But still Rules Lawyers are at best confined to the 5th layer of Roleplayer Hell. There are far worse.
>>48218255
You still have peasants moving their hands around the speed of light.
RAW.
>>48218185
And the amount of details it has as its own thing is in-depth.
They haven't even tried to say that it's historically accurate for over 3 editions (And about 15 years.). It's a fantasy setting with a rigid and ornate culture loosely based on Japan.
I really don't get why "It's not supposed to be historically accurate" is seen as some kind of failing when that's been the way it's run for over a decade.
>>48218175
Stop pretending that you don't spend all your time there anyways.
>>48212965
Manlets never learn.
>>48218418
>>48218471
>deleting your first post to save face
epic
>>48219552
I said exactly the same thing faggot fuck
>>48216869
>Why don't you tell us what the PHB says about "actual" combat vs "not-actual combat"?
The DM decides that.
>>48220023
Which makes
>Actual combat too
a fucking inane statement. What you define as "actual combat" is hogwash arbitrary. In my game it *CAN* mean mercenaries with feather dusters, or else I might not call something a combat until millions lie dead and I chide "ok, I think this is enough to be a combat now - we just reached the proper threshold". And you know what? Nobody gives a fuck.
>>48220109
Still only makes the railgun useful as a transportation system, not, as per RAW at least, a way to do massive damage.
>>48220164
No one ever said anything about damage. Only about absurdity. Which it is, definitively, absurd. Much more than most magic actually, since it turns every person in the world into a potential The Flash simply by lining enough people up and passing an object.
>>48204131
fucking hell
I suffer from the same.
I cannot remember any important dates or names, but I have a completely clear recollection of the rules of the last 3 editions of Warhammer, 40k and basically any wargame I've ever touched.
Meanwhile, I have trouble remembering the names of family members.
I try to not hammer people with it, as I generally prefer to play it a little loose in tabletop (""""narrative"""") but I did get called an encyclopida a couple of weeks ago.
And I am pretty sure that the skill cannot even be applied to making any kind of money. "uh oh, what was the customers/boss/employees name again?"/blog
>>48215173
>inb4 wild, flailing Chicken Little strawmanning
ackytchually, in-during.
This rule is only there to excuse design mistakes and shortcomings.
anyone who follows the rules too strictly are the fucking worst.
my theory is that some people don't have much in their lives besides tabletop, so to justify spending so much of their lives on it they have to believe that it is this big important established thing with set rules that everyone has to follow
instead of the reality of tabletop, which is that it is just a fuckinggamemade for people to havefun
>>48221570
why did you spoilertag those
are you some /v/ memeing millennial faggot
>>48221723
how the fuck would you gather that from spoiler-tags you sperg
does the unnecessary use of spoiler-tags make youupset
>>48221833
Just ignore it. It's been here for the past few days, and its vocabulary seems limited to cuck, meme, faggot, and millenial.
>>48221846
>everyone who disagrees with me is the same person
good argument dude
>>48221833
it's literally a /v/ meme to put fun in spoiler tags
a KNOWN /v/ meme
>>48199197
What about players that betray the party for a good reason?
>>48221846
>you're not allowed to call a cuck a cuck
>you're not allowed to call a meme a meme
>you're not allowed to call a faggot a faggot
>you're not allowed to call a millennial a millennial
what asinine post-post-modernist new-age ironyculture bullshit is this
>>48221846
you seem triggered
is it because getting called a millennial meme cuck faggot hits too close to home for you?
>>48199167
I personally feel as though the selective rules lawyer is the worst kind of player. You know, the ones who are adamant about following rules to the letter until the moment it negatively affects them?
>>48221873
>>48221883
Not them, I'm just here to point out that those who were born in the 80s and sooner are Millenials.
>>48218609
>>48218005
Kill yourself you fucking meme nigger
>>48206554
What? Of course it would be acceptable, how the fuck does a game even grind to a halt because of something like that?
It's a retarded thing to argue about: people don't follow their religions 100% strictly anyway.it's silly for the Islamic character to pray on the jet since Muslims are exempt from the mandatory prayer while traveling, but they're still recommended to pray a different, shorter prayer
>>48199167
No. the worst kind of player, mark my words, are thatguysh DMs that think they're better then you, and half-heartedly pretend they're having fun in your game thinking they're doing you a favor.
There is nothing worse than this. NOTHING
>>48206158
>technically correct
the best kind of correct
>>48199167
Follow the rules and you won't get lawyered, bitch. I'll see you in court.
Why does the RPG community perpetuate within itself a culture of ignorance, wherein not knowing the rules is seen as a virtue and having keen expertise is to be demonized?
When I GM, I welcome any players to correct me on rules I might be running incorrectly, and am ready to argue mechanical matters at a moment's notice.
>>48215026
what the fuck even happened
>>48223635
Arguing rules during the game can disrupt the flow of the game (and of course the in-character immersion), so to me that's a no-no.
But really, people should know the rules or have quick references to the usual rules, and be fine with sensible rules being made up on the fly - you can always look them up later.
This is my personal opinion, though, and most D&D editions, from my experience, have a tough time reaching immersion due to all the distractions necessary outside of the rules. So arguing mechanics there is probably ok but it kind of takes up time that could be spent gaming and can get rather heated and emotional for no good reason.
>>48223635
Bad GMs can't stand it when players exercise agency in a way they didn't expect (such as by them knowing the rules better) and that they can't reasonably block.
>>48223635
Because, similarly to how a doctor cannot watch "home alone" without noting how the burglers would've been killed within the first 10 minutes of them entering the house, it really sucks you out of the story once you gain an understanding of the rules, especially ones that are poorly written like third edition.
For example, according to the rules in pathfinder, a ballista bolt only deals 3d8 damage, while a level 5 wizard with a +2 CON mod. who rolls average on his 1d6 HD (4) will have 30 HP, more than enough to tank said ballista bolt and possibly even maintain concentration on a spell considering how easy it is to cheese concentration checks in third edition.
Once you understand the rules and realize how most of the things that happen in game are caused by the GM ignoring said rules, it ruins the immersion because either you're thinking "man, I had way more health than that bolt could deal" or "man, I can't even kill a fucking wizard with this fucking weapon!"
People who can't read the mood at the table and modify their behavior in reaction to it are the worst.
Pretty much any behavior is fine if you pay attenton to when people are ready for you to stop and reel it in. Pretty much any behavior is a nightmare if you just grind onward.
>>48224545
This is every complaint and problem and that guy thread summed up in a single, coherent and short post.
Its beautiful
>>48223673
He chained a series of cards during his first turn that caused the other guy to keep drawing from his deck until he had no cards left to draw. When it was his turn, he had nothing left to draw from so he lost by default.
>>48199167
No, power gamers are the worst types of players
>>48199167
No, all a rules-lawyer does is expose weak or inconsistent DMs. Your DM should either set a precedent, or shut them down.
>>48207305
same desu
>>48199167
How do I know if I'm a rules lawyer? I don't argue with the GM, but I have gotten in fights with other players before about the rules.
>>48207305
I know someone like this in my local gaming group. He's pretty shy, so he doesn't interact much with NPC's in any way except combat. When he does, he's not so great at it, so the GM tends to impose penalties to his social rolls because his negotiation ideas are usually not so great (this is his first game).
This has become a vicious cycle, and he has told me that he doesn't see any reason to ever try to persuade, haggle intimidate, or even talk to NPCs because it'll just end up failing.
>>48199263
Fuck you
>>48200397
Fuck you
>>48200429
Fuck you too
>>48205634
Retard
I don't really give a shit but I am a lorefaggot GM that loves to stay true to the lore or at least to thematic core of the setting.
I loathe players that try to make characters that not only fully contradict the setting, but have absolutely nothing to do with it thematically.
Just fuck you all, I know what kind of players you are.
>>48228649
Actually yeah, the players I hate the most are the people that
A) Play the same character every single game, even cross settings.
B) Players that ignore thematic and setting consistency even though I warn and discuss what kind of a game we want to play and what setting we should play for said feel.
>>48228649
Jesus, they're not saying people who like the lore are the worst, they're saying the guy who won't let you have twin swords because "his character wouldn't do that for X lore reason" are the worst. And yes, they are, not only because it ruins the fun but also because 90% of the time they totally ignore background for their own character.
>>48199167
What makes a rules lawyer?
I see players get called rule lawyers if they get upset that house rules are brought up in the middle of a session, usually after they made a roll. That seems like an expected reaction though. Also silly things like the ac of a target changing from from one hit to the next in the middle of a turn since nothing is written down.
>>48209118
You're a fucking dick. The rules are the rules. Rule 0 is designed to speed up the game when speed up the game when there isn't a clear ruling.
>>48228727
I know exactly what kind of a character they are talking about, it's not about twin swords, it's shit along the lines of
>I am a half Dragon and my mom was a -
>Dragons can't reproduce in this setting...they are just divine spiritual beings.
>BAAAAAAAAAW LORE NAZI STOP RESTRICTING MY CHARACTER
>>48228884
>everyone who disagrees with me is the bait
typical millennial faggot response. die.
>>48221570
I think you're acting a bit solopsistic there. I personally have a lot of fun trying to find unique work-arounds within a somewhat rigid rules structure. If you want to just have unstructured fun that you can change on a whim, go play calvinball. There is a reason that every game in human history, competitive or not, has a rules structure that must be followed. The reason is that when rules get bent or broken too often, it starts to get unfair for someone, and when someone things things are unfair it becomes frustrating.
If the rules are set before the game begins and the players have the ability to learn them, they cannot cry unfairness between other players. "Why did he get a +5 bonus and not me on my attack?" Is a lot less of an annoyance when you can say "oh, it's right here in the rules" vs. "I just thought it applied"
>>48224450
Someone didn't read the "hp is an abstraction" section of the rulebook. In fact, most of the things that can "take you out of the game" have very reasonable explanations. The most common one being "it would be really really stupid if a peasant with a crossbow had a 1 in 20 chance to kill the most powerful wizard in the world"
>>48229099
As soon as anyone says "abstraction" in defense of stupid game mechanics that don't make sense in a mechanical or narrative sense, it just tells me that the game is too shit to be bothered by it.
In SR, a gunshot wound to the chest is going to fuck you up unless you're a troll or someone with shitloads of augments because avoiding damage is preferable to taking damage.
Yet in DnD, the weakest PC with the smallest HD can tank a ballista bolt or take multiple longsword chops to the chest and still be relatively fine, just because he has enough meat points to take the damage.
I mean, why shouldn't a crossbow take out most PC's when the whole fucking point of a crossbow was being easier to manage while dealing more damage than the standard longbow?
>>48229210
>Yet in DnD, the weakest PC with the smallest HD can tank a ballista bolt or take multiple longsword chops to the chest and still be relatively fine, just because he has enough meat points to take the damage.
No. No they cannot. 12 hitpoints will be wiped out by a ballista shot. try it.
>>48229210
Why is it the game's fault that you are imagining every successful attack as some kind of grievous injury that the PCs just no sell?
>>48229283
1d4+14 CON (+2) says otherwise.
Keep in mind, this is also assuming the ballista bolt rolls max damage, so the average damage it might deal would be around (15) damage or so per bolt, which is even easier for a level 5 wizard to tank.
>>48229283
A 12hp character actually has an almost 1/3 chance of surviving the ballista shot with only temporary damage.
>>48209118
>I can't understand or take time to understand a rule so a person who does understand it is an asshole
>>48229345
Because damage should be something that you want to avoid as much as possible.
That and it turns every encounter from a bloody beatdown where both sides are slugging it out for survival and/or glory to a bogged down JRPG simulator where both sides stand opposite of one another and trade hits until every member of one side is either dead or incapacitated because the game doesn't account for injuries and wounds and a character at 1 HP is just as capable as a character at full health.
>>48199167
No. Rules exist for a reason.
Add your home-rules before the game, if you want to change the rules. Play free-form, if you want to ignore them.
>>48215026
I would be both livid and impressed
>>48224450
Hitpoints are not meat points. Once you get past that hurdle it no longer becomes immersion breaking
>>48229099
If 20 guys with crossbows have a clear shot at you and you are just human then you SHOULD die unless you have great armour or are magically protected.
I don't care how good you are at magic.
>>48229345
Because D&D has no abstraction rules.
Especially when you roll for hit, and you roll for damage.
Compared to rolling for damage & hit in the same roll
>>48229546
If they are not meat points why are they reduced by poison. Why do spells that explicitly say they cure wounds restore them?
Systems where physical injury and your 'luck' or determination are completely separate do not have this problem.
>>48229351
You're wrong on two reasons. One assuming the PC has at least 14 con. Two you don't add your con score to HP. A 1d4 character with a con of 14 would have a max of 6 HP
>>48229099
>"it would be really really stupid if a peasant with a crossbow had a 1 in 20 chance to kill the most powerful wizard in the world"
Harry Houdini literally died to a sucker punch by some random yokel.
>>48229593
Think of them as a mixture of stamina, scrapes, luck, etc. Anything that doesn't knock you to 0 or lower was not an attack capable of producing a fatal wound
>>48229546
But there's no other way to explain how a wizard is capable of surviving siege weaponry other than meat points that arbitrarily states how close to death you are from repeated strikes to the chest.
For christ sake, a wizard has a 50/50 shot of surviving a longsword to the chest if he invests in CON a bit yet the wizard is supposed to be the squishiest member of the party by far.
If the squishiest class in the game can tank a siege weapon, at what point does any other PC really have to worry about dying?
>>48209118
This kind of shitty behavior is why half of my group is permanently banned from DMing.
>>48229555
You're assuming DnD is attempting to be realistic. You are wrong
>>48229601
>One assuming the PC has at least 14 con
14 CON isn't the difficult to invest in since the Wizard only really needs a good INT to do his job properly.
>Two you don't add your con score to HP.
In 3rd edition, yes you do.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>48229638
>the wizard is supposed to be the squishiest member of the party by far
Yeah, but he's still a hero. It's better to be squishy champion than a tough mook.
>>48229638
The Wizard dodges the batista bolt but in doing so it clips his shoulder leaving him hurt and tired. Done
>>48199197
I've been dealing with this shit, as a fellow player. I'm thinking of just murdering him. using IC paranoia.
>>48229633
Which still doesn't work because stamina (exhaustion), scrapes (non-lethal damage), and luck (bonus to AC/Saves) are already presented by mechanics in-game.
where is this guy pulling out of his ass that the average joe in D&D has 15 HP
that's just not true
your typical normal jackoff in D&D is going to be a level 0 commoner with a d6 hit die and no CON modifier, due to only having 8 to 10 CON, which works out to an average of around 4 HP
at 4 HP, one good stab from a longsword will kill, one good arrow from a bow or bolt from a crossbow will kill, pretty much anything will kill, really
and don't say "but i was talkin bout dem PCs mang"
well of course PCs can survive shit that would usually kill street trash, that's the whole fuckin point of a PC
>>48229674
>In 3rd edition, yes you do.
Nah, it's still just the modifier.
>>48229601
The Wizard in the ballista example was level 5
You know, the point at which you are approaching superhuman capabilities in 3E.
>>48229660
This has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with why combat is such a slog in 3.X.
When your optimum strategy is rolling to hit until a person dies, and most creatures can survive for multiple turns after being wailed on by the party, it just turns martial characters into a fucking chore to play since all you're doing is standing around like shittier FF characters who can only trade hits until someone dies.
Except it's even worse since attack speed allows FF characters to hit up to 16 times in one turn while the average martial lucky to hit with two at max level.
>>48229674
You add the modifier not the score. So it would be 1d4+2
>>48229714
A modifier that adds extra HP to your total and retroactively adds HP if you decide to raise your CON modifier.
>>48229700
DnD as a whole was created with the concept of hitpoints as an abstraction not as meat points
>>48229690
First off, that's retarded.
Second off, you'd have an easier time trying to dodge an ordinary fucking arrow than an arrow designed to break through stone walls.
Third, that Wizards arm would be dislocated from the force of the bolt clipping his arm, assuming it isn't taken off altogether.
>>48229771
Yet the only way they function is as meat points.
>>48229774
>DnD
>Realistic
Pick one and only one
>>48229732
>the average martial lucky to hit with two at max level
[citation needed]
>>48229740
Did you miss the part where I listed the modifier in parenthesis?
