No Such Agency
New member
OK, I understand that those of you in the gaming community often hate \"rules lawyers\" who know the rules way too well. But it could be worse, imagine life without them.
Rules Lawyers (
- Thread starter No Such Agency
- Start date
At least it\'s not the horse shooting anything on the castle. :|~
That sounds like the game my older son plays with the younger...
\"Oh, I didn\'t tell you about that rule? My guy always wins when he is attacked by two guys with swords, and is next to a castle wall...\"
Sad thing is, it sounds just like the game HIS older brother played with him. lol
That sounds like the game my older son plays with the younger...
\"Oh, I didn\'t tell you about that rule? My guy always wins when he is attacked by two guys with swords, and is next to a castle wall...\"
Sad thing is, it sounds just like the game HIS older brother played with him. lol
Hieronymus
Member
I\'ve been on both sides of this...
I love that guy\'s face. He\'d make a great anti-paladin. By the way, why is it that we never hear about \"counter-paladins\"?
I love that guy\'s face. He\'d make a great anti-paladin. By the way, why is it that we never hear about \"counter-paladins\"?
vincegamer
Active member
That\'s exactly what Shakespear was claiming.
If you kill all the rules lawyers, anarchy and villainy will result.
If you kill all the rules lawyers, anarchy and villainy will result.
Society today in a nutshell.
There\'s certainly benefit from knowing rules well. The abuse is when one uses obscure combinations of rules to win in such a way that your opponent feels blindsided. My first experience with miniature wargaming scared me away for 10 years for that very reason. Players should gauge the use of complicated rule combinations against the experience of their opponents, in my opinion. You don\'t gouge eyes during horseplay.
The Rules Extrapolator bothers me more. He reads the rules and applies then in a way that he thinks makes sense in the current situation (typcically in his favor) often in direct contradiction to the actual text of the rule.
The Rules Extrapolator bothers me more. He reads the rules and applies then in a way that he thinks makes sense in the current situation (typcically in his favor) often in direct contradiction to the actual text of the rule.
dougaderly
New member
I\'ve always been a rules lawyer. Comes from always being the DM. ah well, what can you do?
vincegamer
Active member
I\'d love to hear more detail, if you can remember it.
The times I get accused of being a rules lawyer are when someone tries to do something and I say they can\'t because of x rule.
Is it my fault they didn\'t read the rules before hand?
Well, if I\'m teaching them a game for the first time Yes it is my fault. But, if they\'ve played numerous times and forgot something, then too bad for them.
My Warhammer 40k group (back when I played) had one guy in it, who was a very deeply religious, preached morals, played games by the letter of the law, which was fine and good. EXCEPT, when it was his turn, when that happened, suddenly every rule was flexible, he\'d move \"generally\" the right distance (read 9inches instead of 6), and any time you\'d try to call him on it, he\'d get all defensive and tell you to quit being such a rules lawer. Then of course a few minutes later when it was no longer his turn, it was back to the letter of the law...watching hawkishly that pieces moved EXACTLY the right amount...
Lets just say he was unpopular to play against.
Lets just say he was unpopular to play against.
The Rules Extrapolator? Isn\'t he in the Monster Manual III?
I\'m VERY guilty of being a min/maxer when it came to D&D. I would find EVERY combination of rules loopholes spread over different books, even from different editions of the game. I had a Dwarf mage using 2.0 rules, something that should have been impossible, and another character 100% unhittable at 1st level.
And of course i wouldn\'t let anyone else get away with anything. I didn\'t break the rules, merely choose the ones I wanted to best benefit me in any situation.
D&D has tidied up the rules with 3.5, but I\'m sure if I still played I would be able to create a god-like 1st level character.
It isn\'t rules lawyers that bother me. I don\'t mind people that argu the rules and make their case. Mind you I don\'t play war games, just rpg fantasy, so I\'m used to having the option to set a rule aside. What does bother me are the Rules Fundamentalists. I mean the people who pretend rpg systems are so complete that every answer is dry and clear with no interpretation behind it. Too often this amounts to little other than a denial of the judgement calls they are actually making. And where it really bothers me is in the refusal to try new things, experiment with house rules, or create characters and monsters. Too many of the RPG players around here seem to want everythig to be in a sacred text, i.e. published, and they won\'t even try new things. For war games I can see that. For RPGs, I just find it really stifling.
electrolito 77
New member
I am kind of a rules lawyer, first I have the WH40k rulebook as my toilet reading material and I have GW customer service on Speed dial..... what a jacka$$... I know lollol:twisted:
Oh, I remember it.
It was a game of Epic 40K, which all the gaming guys I knew at college were playing in 1993. I went over to Ed\'s apartment in mid-morning and perused his multiple Epic armies... I picked Squats. A huge train, a dirigible, some artillary... things I thought would be hard targets rather than fast expendables. Ed chose Eldar.What really turned me off was the way I didn\'t feel like I could actually affect the game. Every turn was a series of special circumstances that resulted in my death. The \"rules\" were a pile of photocopied sheets in manilla folders about 6\" high, and we were forever digging through piles to find some rule or other, and I never quite felt like I was getting the whole story.
Highlights:
1. He immobilized my huge train with a half dozen hover-bikes. (\"See? It says right here that you can\'t move or shoot out of combat.\" We \"discovered\" after the game that huge trains apparently can\'t be stopped so trivially... go figure.)
2. My entire left flank eliminated by magical snow ploughs or something. (\"See? Anything these things hit when I shoot them are automatically destroyed. They have infinite range too. It\'s balanced because they are expensive units.\")
3. My artillary being harrassed / destroyed by \"pop-up\" units. (\"See? My hover guys can pop-up over the hill and shoot you, then pop back down. You can\'t see them during your turn, so your artillary can\'t shoot them.\")
In the end I wasn\'t just defeated, I was obliterated. Each unit seemed to have it\'s own stat sheet somewhere (did Citadel minis ship with rules at some point?) and every situation was a special rule designed to kill my squats in some unintuitive manner. I don\'t remember fighting much actual combat, at least as I had envisioned it.
I suppose in this case I would have benefitted from a real, live rules lawyer there just to observe the game.
Sand Rat
New member
Having been something of a munchkin and a rules lawyer all my life, I cant complain too much about either.
However, I do have to admit great fun can be had by hoisting a rules lawyer on his own petard -
Case in Point -
D&D original rules - we had a series rules lawyer playing with us - so bad that he was taking the fun out of the game. He had a picture of his character (it was an ad from Victorias Secret - he felt he was showing how understanding he was by playing a female character) and had stated several times that the picture showed the exact form of the characters armor, which was made of dragon scale and so on and so forth, ending with him having an AC of -2 before adding in his dex bonus and such (we were playing high level characters).
I\'m playing my regular everyday bard (this is orignal edition D&D - Bards are really nasty in that edition) and as usual, my Bard is the lowest level character in the party -
Well, after this guy had really screwed things up for the party several times, on a smoke break I talked to the DM to get his feelings on interparty conflict - and when he said as long as it was in character he had no issues with it.
So, the next time we got out of a serious jam the asshat had gotten us into I turned to the DM and said \"I\'ve had enough of this shit - I\'m putting a knife in her chest - called shot to the opening in the armor\" to which the other character replied \"My AC with bonuses is . . . \" and the DM interrupts with \"in that location 10\"
Then we spent the next 45 minutes using the same rules the asshat had been playing all night long to show him that he was right and truely screwed.
Then he pops up with \"Oh, well your character is only forth level, so I should come out ok\"
And I got to watch his face crumble as I explained that while my character was only a forth level Bard, he was an 9th level Fighter and a 10th Level thief - all of which was legal under the old bard class rules.
However, I do have to admit great fun can be had by hoisting a rules lawyer on his own petard -
Case in Point -
D&D original rules - we had a series rules lawyer playing with us - so bad that he was taking the fun out of the game. He had a picture of his character (it was an ad from Victorias Secret - he felt he was showing how understanding he was by playing a female character) and had stated several times that the picture showed the exact form of the characters armor, which was made of dragon scale and so on and so forth, ending with him having an AC of -2 before adding in his dex bonus and such (we were playing high level characters).
I\'m playing my regular everyday bard (this is orignal edition D&D - Bards are really nasty in that edition) and as usual, my Bard is the lowest level character in the party -
Well, after this guy had really screwed things up for the party several times, on a smoke break I talked to the DM to get his feelings on interparty conflict - and when he said as long as it was in character he had no issues with it.
So, the next time we got out of a serious jam the asshat had gotten us into I turned to the DM and said \"I\'ve had enough of this shit - I\'m putting a knife in her chest - called shot to the opening in the armor\" to which the other character replied \"My AC with bonuses is . . . \" and the DM interrupts with \"in that location 10\"
Then we spent the next 45 minutes using the same rules the asshat had been playing all night long to show him that he was right and truely screwed.
Then he pops up with \"Oh, well your character is only forth level, so I should come out ok\"
And I got to watch his face crumble as I explained that while my character was only a forth level Bard, he was an 9th level Fighter and a 10th Level thief - all of which was legal under the old bard class rules.
I don\'t mind rules lawyers when playing a miniature war game. The rules are there for a reason and it\'s a test of skill, tactician against tactician. As long as you don\'t bend the rules to gain an advantage that I would not get under the same circumstances, be my guest and do whatever you want. I don\'t care about min-maxing either, if the game allows it, just do it.
There are some things I can\'t stand though.... in Confrontation you could get into a situation where you had a higher chance to hit the enemy if you targeted your own models. While the rules never said anything directly against it, it was always obvious to me that you should not be allowed to shoot your own units. Nobody I played with ever tried to enforce the hole and I never did when I had the chance, but if someone did, well, I would not actually deem it fair, I think I\'d accept it.
However, I can\'t stand rules lawyers in rpgs. The rules are more or less guidelines to help you play the role you chose. There are things your character might technically not be able to do, but would fit in very well - for example, a studied mage should not need to make a dice roll and pay in mana to magically light a candle, that\'s just nice style. Now if he tried to light a bonfire in the pouring rain, with the wind howling and wolves after the party, I\'d say \"roll and pay\" in a heartbeat.
Same thing with uber-characters. One guy with whom we played wanted to play as a dwarven warrior (starts with axe skill 5 I think, maximum skill is 18 - with 18, you are GOD concerning this special skill). Now watch the magic.
1) His father was a lumberjack. +2 axe skill.
2) His mother worked with a butcher. Cleaver = Axe. +2 axe skill.
3) From a young age on, he liked helping daddy sharpen his tools. +2 axe skill.
4) He went to study at an academy that mainly trained soldiers in the use of axes. +2 axe skill.
Makes 13. On level 1. You allowed to raise the skill by one point per level.
Also, the rules never alloweed anything like that. He himself thought of the increase in axe skill.
He grew bored of his dwarf quite quickly, maybe because nobody liked him... (the dwarf, that is).
There are some things I can\'t stand though.... in Confrontation you could get into a situation where you had a higher chance to hit the enemy if you targeted your own models. While the rules never said anything directly against it, it was always obvious to me that you should not be allowed to shoot your own units. Nobody I played with ever tried to enforce the hole and I never did when I had the chance, but if someone did, well, I would not actually deem it fair, I think I\'d accept it.
However, I can\'t stand rules lawyers in rpgs. The rules are more or less guidelines to help you play the role you chose. There are things your character might technically not be able to do, but would fit in very well - for example, a studied mage should not need to make a dice roll and pay in mana to magically light a candle, that\'s just nice style. Now if he tried to light a bonfire in the pouring rain, with the wind howling and wolves after the party, I\'d say \"roll and pay\" in a heartbeat.
Same thing with uber-characters. One guy with whom we played wanted to play as a dwarven warrior (starts with axe skill 5 I think, maximum skill is 18 - with 18, you are GOD concerning this special skill). Now watch the magic.
1) His father was a lumberjack. +2 axe skill.
2) His mother worked with a butcher. Cleaver = Axe. +2 axe skill.
3) From a young age on, he liked helping daddy sharpen his tools. +2 axe skill.
4) He went to study at an academy that mainly trained soldiers in the use of axes. +2 axe skill.
Makes 13. On level 1. You allowed to raise the skill by one point per level.
Also, the rules never alloweed anything like that. He himself thought of the increase in axe skill.
He grew bored of his dwarf quite quickly, maybe because nobody liked him... (the dwarf, that is).
vincegamer
Active member
This guy wasn\'t a rules lawyer, he was just a cheat.
A rules lawyer insists that everying stick to the exact letter of the rules and knows every little rule. This guy claimed not to know certain rules that would have disadvantaged him. That\'s like playing chess and claiming that only your pawns have the power to en passant or that his pieces can castle when the inside spaces are threatened but yours cannot.
He was cheating by deceiving you, which is not what a rules lawyer does.
(A rules lawyer exploits your ignorance of minute rules).
Godlikebuthumble
New member
I always thought that only pawns can en passant... ???
