Balesir
Adventurer
I don't know if you're joking, but when we hate people so much we cease assigning human desires and intentions to them, history tells us that bad things happen...That's an interesting theory, but for me, it puts too much intention into the acts of those who have Lawyered Rules.
I see a very natural progression, here.You know, I actually think a significant part of the Rise of the Ruleslawyers, at least in my circles, is how the books changed. They went from often contradictory and vague tomes with an almost mystical feel about them to very clear and concise college textbooks style books. When we played with the first type of books, it was easier, often, to just left the DM say how it was than to search for a particular rule. In 3e and then 4e, the rule referencing was just so danged easy.
The rules books initially gave some rules suited very specifically to "competitive" play against the monsters: hit points (resources to manage), experience points (prizes for winning), classes (reasons to join a team) and so on. But the rules were too vague for a full-on combative contest, so a referee was needed; and the stipulation was that this was the same guy as the "enemy". The natural outcome of this was that the DM had to become an entertainer and an illusionist. S/he couldn't be an antagonist, because they held all the real power, but the players needed opponents to kill and steal stuff from, so the DM had to build an illusion.
At the same time, the rules seemingly expected the players to compete with the monsters; but with the DM determining not just the monsters' placement, motives and moves, but also just what the rules meant about what their characters could do, this wasn't really feasible. So the players learned to shift their attention to other outlets; to competing to please the DM (and thus get their neat ideas accepted as "working"), to enjoying the ride as the DM spun out a 'story' and to immersing themselves completely in their character, imagining what it would be like to be really "there".
Along come more explicit rules. For many players, this doesn't really matter. The DM looks after all that stuff, anyway, while we do improv acting, immerse in the world experience or just enjoy the tale unfolding. But for the competitive ones - the frustrated tacticians - this makes a huge difference! Now, the rules actually say what their character should expect to be able to do! A constellation that has been there in part from day 1 - the impetus to implement tactical plans to kill things and take their stuff in a way you, the player, actually have significant control over - has finally been realised. And so, the assumptions clash.
I can only say that I hardly see Rules Lawyering at all these days. This is for a variety of reasons:To circle back to what you disagree with me about, though, I think the rules-vaguery I mentioned, with my groups, was a reminder the DM was arbiter. He had to be. As the rules become easier to reference, perhaps some additional reminders in the player-facing text would have pushed back against the Rise. Perhaps not.
- When I run 4e, it is because the rules are actually explicit, unambiguous (for the most part) and clear. I know the rules well, and I stick to them, because they work. If I want to change them, that is my prerogative, but I tell the players up front what the changes are. The rules are their communication from me concerning how the game world works.
- When I run HârnMaster, it is because no-one at the table is under any illusions that "competition" or "overcoming challenges" has anything to do with what the play is about. We are all there purely to explore the world of Hârn and build upon its already impressive "reality" to forge a great "myth" in all our minds, shared by all. Rules lawyering given this objective is pointless.
So, my opinion, the key things are communication and clarity. And the rules of the game are a very important locus of communication.
Last edited: