An Odd Thought Occured to Me about RPG's.

[Hussar]

Had a fairly boring day at work, so I was daydreaming a bit. And a thought popped into my head. RPG's, among pretty much any group activity I can think of, are the only activity where a participant who changes the rules in the middle of the game is praised, and a participant who wants to play by the rules during play is often criticized.

It's rather strange when you think about it.

Take the Robot Chicken podcasts. Chris Perkins ruled during the session that powers do not work on objects and the character couldn't use a power on a magically held door. Now, this is in keeping with 4e rules. The 4e rules do allow for DM's to possibly change that rule, but, the base standard is that powers do not affect objects.

People were all over him for this. There's a rather lengthy thread buried somewhere in the past where a fairly large number of people criticised him for ruling this way.

Stop and think about that for a second. The referee in the game is being criticised for following the rules.

When a player corrects the DM about a rule, the term "Rules Lawyer" gets chucked out pretty quickly. Players shouldn't interrupt the flow of the game with rulings, that's the DM's job. But, conversely, if a player tried to do the same thing, ignore the rules of the game and the DM called him on it, the DM gets a pat on the back.

It's a very strange sort of culture we've built at the table where ignoring/changing the rules is considered a good thing and following the rules is often considered bad. In every other game I can think of, the exact opposite is true, and, really, someone who changes the rules in the middle of the game isn't given a pat on the back, but, depending on the game, a boot in the posterior.

Just a random sort of thought that occured to me.

 

[Henry]

It's a very strange sort of culture we've built at the table where ignoring/changing the rules is considered a good thing and following the rules is often considered bad. In every other game I can think of, the exact opposite is true, and, really, someone who changes the rules in the middle of the game isn't given a pat on the back, but, depending on the game, a boot in the posterior.

Just a random sort of thought that occured to me.

The hobby itself was established with that kind of culture. Mike Mornard, an "OG" (original gamer) from Gary's early gaming days, over on RPGnet is often quoted as saying (paraphrased) "we made some stuff up that we thought would be fun" and "Monks exist because Rob Kuntz liked the song 'kung fu fighting'." H.G Wells' Little Wars insinuates the idea of changing rules from its finished form. Even though all games feature rule variants, wargaming and RPGs had the concept of "on the fly" baked into them from its earliest recipes.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

It's about disruption of play. Rules lawyers are like basketball coaches who stop the game to call a personal foul every time an opposing player brushes up against one of his guys. It's supposed to be called when the contact affects play, but it's up to interpretation to some degree.

Playing by the rules is a fine thing to do, but the smooth running of the game takes precedence. Timing is key, and that's why the usual advice is to make a temporary ruling, then break out the books after the session.

[sblock=Robot Chicken podcast sidetrack]I'd have ruled the same as Perkins, because Fairy Fire is explicitly not hot. But I would have given the player an interesting option to use instead right then and there, because otherwise I'm destroying the rhythm and positive vibe of the table. I think Perkins took a beating because he took a group that was upbeat and excited and made the whole table frown, and that's just poor DMing no matter how you slice it. There were a lot of things he could have done there, but he just took the easiest, least interesting course possible: "it doesn't work that way." The DM should always try to at least give the player a "No, but..." answer.

Doesn't make the guy a bad DM, though, and I'm sure he's made a thousand great calls over the course of his career as a GM. I'm pretty glad my performance as a teacher isn't judged on the basis of 10 embarrassing seconds out of my whole career.[/sblock]

 

[Diamond Cross]

Correcting the DM is not necessarily rules lawyering, especially if the DM does not know the rules. And is not neccesarily a bad thing. Because it may interrupt the flow for a little bit, but if the DM doesn't know the rule then they may take time out to look up the rule in a book, and that can take even more time.

A rules lawyer is all about using the rules against everybody else, including the DM and all players in order to get the greatest benefit for his own character. That's the difference.

But then again, a DM can also misuse the rules and the term too, especially if they're a bad DM who wants to give the players illusion of control over their characters. So it can work both ways.

 

[Umbran]

It's about disruption of play.

I think that's an important point. In general, following the rules and sticking by the rules is just fine, so long as it doesn't disrupt play.

The Rules Lawyer disrupts play by starting a meta-discussion that breaks the flow of events.

The DM who sticks strictly to the rules despite a reasonable request from the player disrupts play by making the player have to switch mental gears from something that, intuitively, ought to work.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Eh, you know how it is on the internet. We're a bunch of 'armchair GMs' expressing our views about what a GM ought to have done or do. Threads lengthen, tempers get lost, opinions polarise. People start throwing around absolutes and terms like 'demand', 'bad GM' and 'bad player'. It can get out of hand.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to always follow the rules. I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to change lots of them (though not all of them). I think it's perfectly reasonable to make temporary rulings when a rule is in doubt, to speed up the flow of the game, in fact I do this a lot myself, I'm very comfortable with it. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to look up a rule when it's in doubt, especially when a PC's life is at stake. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to overrule a rule at the table, if he feels it is giving the wrong result - unfun, unrealistic, unbalanced, anti-story, whatever.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to ask the players what they think when doing any of the above.

Basically I think everything is reasonable, or can be, and we often go too far on the internet and slip into various forms of OneTrueWay-ism.

 

[Aurumvorax]

I (and all my players) agree about the disruption of play and generally allow rules to slide when it's not harmful to the flow of the game. Golden rule is the GM always has the final say so unless he's doing ridiculous crap like negating established rules (opening a door is a move action for everyone but my monsters HAHAHA) we don't pay any mind. The only exception is when a battle looks like it's ending poorly for the players and we start rules lawyering HARD and have come to agree that this is when it's acceptable. No one likes it when their character dies so like true lawyers we find every loophole, clause, and objection we can get a hold of.

The "near death lawyering" has actually become a game in itself at my table. We as players come to expect it and the DMs agree that it's fine to disrupt the game when the party's life is seriously on the line.

 

[DragonLancer]

If a spell says that it cannot affect an inanimate object then it cannot affect an inanimate object simple as. Perkins made the right call in that instance. Otherwise it throws the ruling out the window because players will then try to use that rule change again and again.

Sometimes you need to make a DM call. I remember my players and I had much debate over whether an invisible creature totaly underwater was still invisible. Why? Because while he and his gear might be, is there a bubble of his form visible or does it make it appear as though water was in that space? Originally we ruled that that the "bubble" appeared. These days I wouldn't.

A player has to trust his or her DM to make the right call, going by the book or by his choices in modifying an outcome.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Stop and think about that for a second. The referee in the game is being criticised for following the rules.

Nobody likes feeling ineffective.

 

[S'mon]

RPGs are derived from the Prussian semi-free Kriegspiel. The rules are there merely to aid the GM in adjudicating events, so naturally he may change them when necessary.