[Fallen]

Greetings all,

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone here has ever had to deal with a player who seems more concerned with the application of the Rules in the game than the actual game itself.

Now, I'm not referring to a player who would point out a rule the GM may have missed or some minor misinterpretation.  What I refer to is That Player Who Acts As If They're Constantly Looking Over Your Shoulder Like He's Just Waiting For An Opportunity To Point Out Something You Might've Missed.

In my experience as a Game Master, I've sometimes run into that sort of player and it usually ended up with me having a talk with them and kindly informing them I'd rather they step out of the game altogether.

I'm interested to know how you guys have dealt (or would deal) with similar situations.

[baronspam]

It depends of how much it disrupts the game.  I certainly am not correct in every single rules call I have made in my GM career, but on the whole I do pretty good.  I am willing to listen to a brief appeal, as sometimes I do get it wrong.  But overall, if you have someone who is constantly slowing down the game, always claiming that "things could not happen that way because of x", protesting everything that goes against his/her character, etc, then you need to take then aside and bluntly tell them to stop it or get out.  Its a game,  The Game has a referee.  That referee is you.  Be open to a legitimate point of order, but if someone is disruptive of other people having a good time stomp on it. 

[Fallen]

That's pretty much my take on it as well.

[BSOD]

The group I game with tend to find these types die down pretty quickly, then again we also have a few GMs who are quite liberal with their use of Rule 0.
i.e. "Rocks fall on your head, take X damage" - GM
"But we're outside?..." - Player
"They're magic rocks." - GM

[Fallen]

Haha -- That's a good way to deal with it, certainly and provided the player(s) actually accept that sort of thing and don't go on a harangue about how it's "impossible", given that the rules don't cover Randomly Falling Magical Rocks.

[kirk]

I just point to the clause (or variation thereof) that is in every RPG rule book I've ever read. Here's the version from SR4A:

If something in these rules doesn’t quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better—go for it!

Above all, the rules are here to facilitate telling good stories. Don’t get bogged down in rules disputes when it’s important to keep the plot moving, just fudge it and move on. Don’t allow powergaming to run out of control, but don’t let an unexpected death or glitch derail the plot either.

If they can't follow the first rule, then they have no business dinging me on the rest of them.   

[Fallen]

The Golden Rule, yes.

For some strange reason or another, I've come across some players who somehow don't consider that particular rule to be quite as important as the others.  But, yes, ideally people should envision the rules for what they are (an accessory to facilitate gameplay and telling good stories).

Other than kicking the offending player out, I'm interested to know how similar issues have been resolved (Rule 0, as raised by BSOD, is a good example) by GMs frequenting this forum: how it went, what was done about it, etc.

[wylie]

if that person really knows the rules that well, either take a load off of your shoulders and have him do rule checks for you when a question comes up, or....

make him the GM 

[Fallen]

Hmm... I've never thought of doing that whenever I've come across a Rules Lawyer in the past.  This looks to be one of the best ways to deal with the problem: have them do the Rules check for you.

A very interesting suggestion, wylie.  Thank you for sharing it.

[The_Gun_Nut]

I believe that the rules should follow what the book lays down very closely.  Close enough that players can rely upon their knowledge of the rules to be used in their favor, when they think of them.  Any modifications or house rules need to be stated up front, and repeated when necessary, so that everyone is on the same page and the players don't feel like the GM is an arbitrary prick out to get them*.

That said, fudging and quick arbitration are key to maximizing everyone's enjoyment.  It really sucks to have a PC go down to really bad luck (unless they brought it on themselves, that's a completely different story).  It also sucks to have an enemy that the players are enjoying hating die a meaningless death (usually also really bad luck).  A little fudge now and then keeps the enjoyment going, but be careful, and use this sparingly.  Otherwise, well, see above (*).

[Fallen]

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, what if the circumstances and situation are that, say, for example, you, as a GM, call for an attribute check to, say, see if a particular character remembers a specific detail about something that happened a few months ago when the player himself has no recollection of the event, nor notes detailing the matter.  You, as a GM, want to give a helping hand in this process, so you call for a Logic test.  The player's response is, say, that you, as a GM, have no right to "interfere" with the inner workings of his character (such as what the character can remember, in this example).

This is all rhetorical, mind you.

What then?

How, in your view, should a GM react to resolve the situation?

[Blond Goth Girl]

Agreed with the previous posts.....

I read the rules twice and that usually makes me retain them.  Before we start, I publish a list of house rules with SR4, I disagreed with the running rules and with most all systems, I rarely default to an attribute. 

If someone knows the rules better than me, I'll even default and long as it seems reasonable.  Aside from the first three game sessions, there is no halting the game to look things up. 

The rule of common sense over-rules everything else.

As to rules lawyers, while they're looking up something, I'm moving on to the next scene along with everyone else.  After awhile, they get the point.

[wylie]

you are welcome Fallen

[JoeNapalm]

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, what if the circumstances and situation are that, say, for example, you, as a GM, call for an attribute check to, say, see if a particular character remembers a specific detail about something that happened a few months ago when the player himself has no recollection of the event, nor notes detailing the matter.  You, as a GM, want to give a helping hand in this process, so you call for a Logic test.  The player's response is, say, that you, as a GM, have no right to "interfere" with the inner workings of his character (such as what the character can remember, in this example).

This is all rhetorical, mind you.

What then?

How, in your view, should a GM react to resolve the situation?

They may be a Rules Lawyer, but you are The Judge!

A have one player who usually knows the rules as well as I do...and he is running our latest game. We have an understanding that we can state an objection based on a rule - but the GM is the ultimate arbiter and their decision is not up for debate during sessions.

The GM can make, change, or disregard rules as they see fit. Same goes for the dice.

The flip side its that the GM should strive to be fair consistent, and fun.

In your example, it would depend on the player. If they are just noob, I would explain so they grok it. But if it is your rules lawyer, and should know better...

...insurance doesn't cover "acts of God"...

I am rarely punitive as a GM, but I have struck characters with lightning on a clear day for bring disruptive.  Rolled the dice and everything...just didn't even look at them, and said "What are the odds?"

Didn't kill them - but it got the point across.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Fallen]

Good points, all, and very sound advice.

Thanks a bunch.