[revaddict]

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?

Wow, I can't imagine a player objecting to me giving him a helping hand, but if doesn't want it, I'd just say, "Forget it then."

[revaddict]

In about 30 years of GMing, I've thankfully never dealt with a hardcore rules lawyer (though I do recall the occasional player who would get a bit cocky because he knew the rules so well).

Maybe this is just because I've never had to deal with a rules lawyer much, but I just couldn't bring myself to take a rules lawyer seriously.  If such a player started taking my game apart, I'd be thinking, "Is this guy actually telling me how to run my world??" 

To me, arguing with the GM over the rules is like arguing with God.  (Though as a god, I'm quite benevolent to my players.)

If push came to shove, I'd just invoke Rule 0 and not invite the player back.

[nakano]

To be honest, I tend to not allow rules lawyers at my tables.  It has been my experience that it bogs down the flow of the game, and leads to one player attempting to debate "correct" application of rules whilst the other players eyes glaze over, they go for a snacks, start talking about the football/hockey/baseball game, or simply watch the paint dry. 

WHEN my players have a concern about rules, I make a ruling on the fly, and then research the matter after the session.  If it is CRITICAL rules call, I typically take 10 minutes or so to take a look at the rules.

Now honestly, most of my experience with rules lawyers has not been, the type of rules lawyers outlined in the initial post, who wish to see the game run RAW.  Generally my experience has been the rules monkeys looking for an edge, trying to pull one over on the GM by partial quoting rules, or applying "liberal" interpretation of them.

IMO if a player knows the rules that well and critiques or undermines the GM because of that, they should get off their butts and run the game rather then play.  Of course the number of rules lawyers that have taken me up on that challenge over the years is very very slim.   

[kirk]

What you describe is what I now call a Mikey. (Thanks, SP). Not just a rules lawyer, but a bad player who's in it not to have fun but to win, and not just to win against you the GM but against all the other players.

I've encountered three of these as a GM. I've never found an in-game solution.

The first killed the group.

The second was persuaded out of game that by "winning" the game he was "losing" the metagame -- that by winning he would end up without this group. There were two ways in theory and as I wasn't going to allow another group to die that way, I'd just bar him from playing anymore.

The third turned out to have other issues. He wanted to end the group because while he liked some players he didn't like others, and he didn't think I'd make him leave. It got nasty, and I lost a couple of players who didn't like the upset as well as losing him.

I wish you better success, and if you come up with a good alternative (in or out of game), share.

[Fallen]

What you describe is what I now call a Mikey.

Hahaha -- A Mikey!

Love it, will pilfer it off you provided you won't take offense in my so doing.

In the past, I would simply ask the offending party to leave, since it not only slowed down the game, but also annoyed me to no end.  I very much dislike having people looking over my shoulder in hopes that I'll mess up somewhere.

"Is this guy actually telling me how to run my world??"

My sentiments exactly.

I kind of like wiley's suggestion:

take a load off of your shoulders and have him do rule checks for you when a question comes up

Provided I genuinely like the person outside of the game, this may well be the course I would take should such a player once more find themselves at my gaming table.

Generally my experience has been the rules monkeys looking for an edge, trying to pull one over on the GM by partial quoting rules, or applying "liberal" interpretation of them.

That kind of player, I generally have no trouble with -- simply because, typically, it's my final call which counts and not their interpretation.  In my view, the one interpretation that matters in a game is the GM's own.  They will/would get theirs validated whenever they should run their own game.

Good thread methinks: good food for thought and sound advice overall.

Cheers.

[kirk]

What you describe is what I now call a Mikey.

Hahaha -- A Mikey!

Love it, will pilfer it off you provided you won't take offense in my so doing.

Nope, stole it myself. (from SomethingPositive.net ) See for example the nine episodes that start here.

[Fallen]

Hahaha -- Brilliant!

[The_Gun_Nut]

Had one in a game once.  He quoted some rule (it was from AD&D, way back when) and then told me why what this NPC was doing was impossible.  I stared right at him and asked "How do you know that's what he's doing?"  His response was classic.

"Because..."

I then turned to the rest of the group and just got on with it.

I find that works really well for rules lawyers.

[revaddict]

Had one in a game once.  He quoted some rule (it was from AD&D, way back when) and then told me why what this NPC was doing was impossible.  I stared right at him and asked "How do you know that's what he's doing?"  His response was classic.

"Because..."

I then turned to the rest of the group and just got on with it.

I find that works really well for rules lawyers.

I wish I could have seen that, Gun Nut.

Hey, I just got an idea.  How a t-shirt for us GMs that says, "I eat rules lawyers for breakfast" or "I feed rules lawyers to my pet dragon" or something like that?

[kirk]

Dragon kibble.

Ingredients list: Rules lawyers, ... (Yep, inviting you to add your own)

[CanRay]

Ketchup-Flavoring.

[nakano]

1st Edition Elves.(Even dragons need their greens, but eating elfsies would certainly be tastier.    )

[CanRay]

"The elves eat the greens, the dragons eat the elves.  Thus, the dragons get their greens." 

[Fallen]

Hmm.  I do believe you're on to something with this whole ketchup-flavored dragon kibble Elf and greens t-shirt thing.

This, I simply must incorporate into my game world.

I'll give credit where it's due: the Natural Foods Division of Revaddict-Kirk-Nakano-CanRay (R.K.N.C.) Enterprises will soon market Ketchup-Flavored Dragon Kibble Elf Greens snacks, and produce t-shirts as a form of advertisement.  Their slogan will be obscure: "For lawyers who know the rules... and wanna eat healthy!"  Now with 200% more ketchup flavor!

... which is really just funny dragon-shaped mycoprotein-enriched ketchup-flavored soy crackers.  And, yes, the soy's Elven-grown.  How posh!

[Kylen]

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.

I know this is off topic, but why do you dislike running rules? And more specifically, are we talking about movement type rules, or some other rule I'm missing that also is known as running?