Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9384175" data-attributes="member: 7037866">A Rules Lawyer is the same in both, only who they have to convince has changed.The OS Rules Lawyer advocates for their interpretation of the rules when in conflict with the DM, or would advocate for a rules/system the DM wasn't using, or try to convince the DM to not use a system being used. Which is the exact same a NS Rules Laywer does IME. They argue for their interpretation, to use a system, or not use one. The major difference is with NS the DM isn't the only concern, the other players making up the group have a say.NS is (in theory) a democracy and exchange; the group decides.OS is (in theory) a monoarchy with DM as the king and the DM decides.Same thing. The player succeeds on the roll so the PC &quot;solved&quot; the riddle and the DM tells the group what solution the PC came up with. The PC does, in fact, solve it; otherwise the DM wouldn't tell the players what that solution was.Of course this is vastly different from when a PLAYER actually solves it and shares that solution with the group, allowing their character &quot;in game&quot; to arrive at the solution, which is confirmed by the DM.More accurately it is 100% the DM telling the players what the PCs do or have to do. But even then often the players then fill in the details to describe precisely how the PC completes the course of action the DM says must be done. It mostly depends on the scene, timeline, priorities of the group, etc. IME just how much involvement the player has for the course of action vs. the DM in a specific vs. general sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9384175, member: 7037866"] A Rules Lawyer is the same in both, only who they have to convince has changed. The OS Rules Lawyer advocates for their interpretation of the rules when in conflict with the DM, or would advocate for a rules/system the DM wasn't using, or try to convince the DM to [I]not[/I] use a system being used. [I]Which is the exact same[/I] a NS Rules Laywer does IME. They argue for their interpretation, to use a system, or not use one. The major difference is with NS the DM isn't the only concern, the other players making up the group have a say. [B]NS is (in theory) a democracy and exchange; the group decides. OS is (in theory) a monoarchy with DM as the king and the DM decides.[/B] Same thing. The player succeeds on the roll so the PC "solved" the riddle and the DM tells the group what solution the PC came up with. [I]The PC does, in fact, solve it; otherwise the DM wouldn't tell the players what that solution was.[/I] Of course this is vastly different from when a PLAYER actually solves it and shares that solution with the group, allowing their character "in game" to arrive at the solution, which is confirmed by the DM. More accurately it is 100% the DM telling the players [I]what the PCs do or have to do[/I]. But even then often the players then fill in the details to describe precisely how the PC completes the course of action the DM says must be done. It mostly depends on the scene, timeline, priorities of the group, etc. IME just how much involvement the player has for the course of action vs. the DM in a specific vs. general sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification