Rules Lawyers: The Most Important Rules in all GURPS

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by pestigor

Expectations need to be laid out and long before a character is made or a die is rolled a compromise in style and feel has to be arrived at or the game is doomed to last 2 or 3 sessions and the drop off the face of the earth (best case, worst case is if people like to suffer or have no where else to play and every session is arguments and fighting).

Agreed. I have never started a GURPS campaign without giving the players a campaign outline. Actually, the first one I ran, the "outline" ended up being about 30 pages, which was probably overkill (but I did give out about a 2 page condensed version).

Even when I run a one-shot game at a convention and have designed the characters myself, I always start with explaining the background of the genre and the feel of that particular adventure.

And then there's the below; don't start a campaign as a GM or player without it (or the equivalent):
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/resourc...gnPlanning.pdf

[Evil Roy Slade]

Originally Posted by tbone

Out of curiosity: One often hears of the dreaded "Rules Lawyer" who badgers the GM with technicalities and literal readings of rules that favor the PC. But how often do such players actually plague the game table?

Rules lawyers are very much in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think of it in the classic phrasing, "I know the rules of the game; you are a stickler; he is an insufferable rules lawyer."

I run games more often than I play: when I run things, I try to keep the rules lookups at as close to zero as possible by having what I need in my head; when I'm a player I keep my yap shut about unusual interpretations unless the GM asks me for a clarification.

I have rarely had an issue. Closest I can think of was years ago when a character was knocked out in a melee and the player argued that the following turn he should be allowed to roll to wake up. "It's one-second turns. You haven't even hit the ground yet."

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I've largely taken the same tack as Christopher later in life, which is at first a gentle "let's keep the game moving" and then a more firm "stop disrupting" and then "bye."

That being said, on both these forums and in other places - facebook and reddit - I see folks posting about "My GM did X, and I didn't like it. Show me rules support!"

Some of these complaints are semi-legit in that it can be a violation of expectations ("Look, I got these two feats because they stack and they're awesome!" "I don't like that. They don't stack in my game.")

That's a 100% legit thing to do - your table, your rules - but handled poorly it can cause friction.

This is why I'm exhaustive in creating campaign materials. My creation package (as you know) almost always covers house rules, optional rules in play, extended rules, how to create a character, the social contract, experience point guidelines, and so on. Anyone that plays with me will know exactly where they stand with me and if I need to I will explain stuff. Most of the time that's not necessary.

A kind of follow-up on my post: I don't mind rules advocates - these are the folks that grease the wheel of the game. They know the system well enough that they can assist other players and help them with options while the GM can focus on running the game. Advocates are damn useful. "Find me the rule for X while I do Y" is something I often say to my advocates (and I have at least one per group). Advocates turn into lawyers when they tell the GM they are wrong and hold up the campaign because they want to be right. I do not suffer a rules lawyer to play and really no one should. Fun should be the main purpose of campaign, not holistic rules interpretation.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

A kind of follow-up on my post: I don't mind rules advocates - these are the folks that grease the wheel of the game. They know the system well enough that they can assist other players and help them with options while the GM can focus on running the game.

I completely agree; it can help the game run smoother and quicker if the GM has assistance. Whether I or someone else is GMing, we frequently have the GM asking someone to look up a rule for them. Fortunately, the weekly group I'm in now and my occasional group both do that, and both have reliable people to do it.

I think it's part of a mindset that "we're creating a story together" rather than "I'm trying to win."

Originally Posted by Christopher R. Rice

Fun should be the main purpose of campaign, not holistic rules interpretation.

Note to Rules Lawyers who think not following the rules exactly isn't fun:

"The most important rule says 'Have fun!' So if you aren't having fun you're breaking the rules!"

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I think it's part of a mindset that "we're creating a story together" rather than "I'm trying to win."

Portraying those as the only two possibilities is egregiously wrong.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I think it's part of a mindset that "we're creating a story together" rather than "I'm trying to win."

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Portraying those as the only two possibilities is egregiously wrong.

I actually wasn't intending to present those as the only two possibilities, especially as I've done roleplaying for other reasons. And certainly a player can be playing a game both for fun and to "win" by rescuing the princess or capturing the evil villain or killing the monster and taking its stuff.

I was using my current weekly game as an example. A significant portion of our adventures is dealing with the foul ups of our own not-always-competent PCs, which we all find to be a big part of the fun.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I actually wasn't intending to present those as the only two possibilities, especially as I've done roleplaying for other reasons. And certainly a player can be playing a game both for fun and to "win" by rescuing the princess or capturing the evil villain or killing the monster and taking its stuff.

I was using my current weekly game as an example. A significant portion of our adventures is dealing with the foul ups of our own not-always-competent PCs, which we all find to be a big part of the fun.

You're still presenting them as opposed poles. And compounding it by implying that 'we're creating a story together' is synonymous with "fun".

Playing your character and creating a story can be very different agendas. And 'fun' can mean either of them, or any of several other things, depending on whose fun it is and what they're into at the moment. (And to be blindingly obvious, that can include 'winning' challenges. Which isn't even necessarily a problem unless you're trying to 'win' against other players who didn't come for that, or the GM finds it unsatisfying to play to.)

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

Note to Rules Lawyers who think not following the rules exactly isn't fun:

"The most important rule says 'Have fun!' So if you aren't having fun you're breaking the rules!"

Which means that if rules lawyers think following the rules exactly is fun, then they are perfectly justified in following the rules exactly.

You can't carry a Fun-O-Meter to every game and constantly check to ensure that every action taken meets mandated levels of fun.

In fact, "have fun" is not a rule. It is a goal. Sometimes fun is hard work, denying yourself instant gratification for a larger purpose. You should not proclaim any particular rule un-fun in order to foil any rules lawyers near you.

[Alden Loveshade]

Maybe I can clarify what I'm trying to say by this: the most important thing in a game is that everyone playing it is having fun. If everyone has fun following a set of rules exactly, cool. If everybody is having fun ignoring the rules, cool. If everyone is having fun doing something in between, cool.

If a game isn't fun for you, see if the others are willing to change it to something that you do find fun. If not, find another game or game group you'll enjoy.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

As long as a GM states that there are changes before character creation, I do not think that it a major problem. It is when a GM changes a rule in mid-game, especially when it is to favor a NPC or the nerf a PC, that I find annoying. To me, rules exist to protect the players from GM whims, so rules lawyers fulfill a vital function by reminding GMs that they are not following the default (or changed) rules that players built their characters around.

I agree that it is bad form to change rules in the midst of a game session.

I don't agree, though, that every campaign requires some sort of Constitution at the start that spells everything out. That raises the bar high enough to exclude most newcomers to GURPS and casual gamers who don't have the time or inclination to foresee the implications of every rule on their entire campaign arc. I've been playing GURPS for decades, but I have never yet written a campaign prospectus or pre-defined all of my house rules or anything like that. I'm not opposed to such things, but I tend to adjust the rules as we go, based on genre expectations and the preferences of the players. If something isn't working for me or for any of the players, we talk it over and look for consensus. Sometimes this might mean nerfing an ability that ended up dominating the game unexpectedly, but I can't really imagine a situation where I would impose this on a player without their consent. (Indeed, in every case that I can think of over the past few years, any nerfs were requested by players who felt like their characters were too dominant in one area or another.) Just as often it goes the other way where we figure out a way to boost a character who sounded good in theory but ended up being kinda lackluster in practice.

This is especially true when you're running long campaigns. My weekly game in California lasted more than ten years. We were constantly tinkering with the rules to maintain the feel that we wanted.