Are rules lawyers literally the worst kind of player in any game?

I hate those. Especially when they argue lore that their character cannot/did not/should not know.

You joke about this kind of thing but I've had players like this.

Nope, I just terminate them till their clones get the message. Rules arguments are treason, citizen.

This. Rules lawyers can be useful if you genuinely need to know what the rules are. Fetish shitters are always cancer.

I thought just knowing the rules was treason, as the book with actual mechanics was above clearance?

Paranoia is great

Rules Lawyer: someone who makes bad GMs extremely butthurt by actually knowing the rules of the game

Only if you have GM who cares about what the official rules are and doesn't waive rules at the drop of a hat when necessary. That shuts down any rules lawyering very quickly.

I can feel my body temperature rising. My butt's already blasted

I could catch a fish with that kinda bait.

Based Paranoia

Well, no. The rules are ULTRAVIOLET clearance. So once you have promoted your RED clearance troubleshooter to ULTRAVIOLET, you will be free to study rules and mission description at lengths. Don't you feel blessed by the generosity of FRIEND COMPUTER, citizen?

>I said: DON'T YOU FEEL BLESSED???

"Right, so next time we just hold the game at [other user's] house without telling him. Let's see if we can rope one of our cousins into playing his character or something (assuming he was even important)."

I made this thread about MtG

There was literally like half an hour wasted over rules lawyering about stuff that wasn't even happening

and "proper play" in a casual game

No it's only teason if you get caught. You're meant to read it and lie if asked.

Which is actually a really good way to do to be honest.

>Actually, user, your paladin would never take that feat because every holy warrior of the high church learns to fight with both hands, so obviously you should be investing in tfw.

>cheating in a game
>Get told you are cheating
>fuck you its supposed to work REEEEEE
You play by how the cards are written you retard, if you fuck up and its casual enough go back and do it right, but you dont get to outright cheat because you cant read.

no like

rules lawyering in the middle of the game about theoretical situations that weren't actually happening and weren't going to happen

Just say hang the digression and continue playing.
Get some assertiveness.

No, Randumbs and Spehsal Snowflakes then Munchkins and in fourth Rules Lawyers.

Not including the actual type of neckbeard or man child which exists independent of what makes a shitty player.

it happened repeatedly

the rules lawyer was an actual neckbeard who crowed about playing for fun then nitpicked everyone over shit like where they put their exile pile

Oh god, I thought I blocked that out...

They're not the worst but they're pretty bad. Worse are inconsistent rules lawyers, and even worse then that are inconsistent rules lawyer GM's.
For instance...
>I want to do this awesome thing
>The rules say you can't
>An npc did the exact same awesome thing three rounds ago
>I'm the GM
>Okay, I'll do this other awesome thing
>You can't do that, it's not physically possible.
>But the rules say I can do it.
>I'm the GM.

Pic related is the best kind of rules lawyer

>Rules lawyers can be useful if you genuinely need to know what the rules are.

A rules expert can be helpful. A rules lawyer isn't just trying to make things happen by the book, though. A lawyer is trying to argue for a specific client, in this analogy themselves, not apply the law fairly and evenly to everyone - that's the judge and jury's job. So a rules lawyer is someone who tries to argue the rulebook /to their benefit/, not just in general.

Pissing off people who abuse the rules by throwing those rules back in their face is one of the best feelings about any tabletop game.

Fucking I know, right? Unless it's a super serious game that's very ingrained in the lore/setting, just fucking let me play my casual game for fun.

It's because of that asshole why I've never had a chance to play L5R even once. Because if it's a game that he's in or runs, I just know I'll get killed for stupid reasons all because I'm not used to all the different set pieces across the different books or have them memorized.

>Lawful Good versus Lawful Evil.

What's the story here?

Long story short.
Kid in white shirt built a stupid army list consisting entirely of biker units that all start in reserve. Smiling guy set up his army all along the table edge, thus meaning that the kid's units couldn't enter play without touching one of them. Thus, all of the kid's units are technically destroyed, and the smiling guy win's automatically on turn one.

Knowing the rules at RED clearance is a treason. Arguing with the GM is also a treason. Therefore rules arguments are DOUBLE treason and grounds for immediate termination.

Guy with the book was a bit of a dick and kept his entire army (white scars) in reserve, planning on deploying it after seeing the smiling guys army placement (Tau, so book guy assumed gun line). Smiling guy had a shit tonne of Scouts and infiltrated the whole board uncontested, being given the win by territory.

I've been described as a rules lawyer, but Im actually a rules mentat. I just remember rules, for every damn game ive ever played. Its actually pretty annoying sometimes, imagine the important things i could remember if all my brain space wasnt filled with rules forn games long gone.

in any case its contextual. Rules lawyering in an rpg or a story driven wargame is usually (but not always) a dick move.
Rules lawyering in a competitive wargame or in any boardgame is usually (but again not always) fine.

Its game, group and scenario dependent.

No, GMs who can't be bothered by following the rules are. If you don't want to read and make the game work like everyone should expect it to then go play some freeform shit at a forum. If you must add houserules, they should be explained and written out before character creation.

Git gud scrub

>in any game?
No, in Nomic, which literally means 'Law' and is basically Robert's rules of order turned into an RPG, the more rules lawyers there are the better the game will be. There is no rule of cool, and if one were passed it would likely be repealed quickly.

If a rules lawyer is simply insisting on clarity around certain rules, then the problem lies with the rules and those who wrote them. 3.5e for example is notorious for rules that are unclear or downright self-contradictory. He has the right to make his case before the DM declares the new rule through DM fiat.

If he's just trying to argue around clear and established rules for his benefit, he's an asshole that needs to be shut up.

>Thus, all of the kid's units are technically destroyed, and the smiling guy win's automatically on turn one.

God I'd having a shit eating grin too.

When rules make fun shit or wacky outcomes, like the peasant railgun or other fun things, they provide an interesting challenge to DMs and can be fun, if used only every so often.

Why is it always Tau players?

The peasant railgun always pissed me off because it relies on selective use of real-world physics.

If you actually follow the rules of the game last commonor is just making a ranged attack with an throw improvised weapons.

You try to apply real-world physics _it simply wouldn't work to begin with_.

You can just tell a rules lawyer no, at least they know the rules. Guys who make no effort to improve their shockingly vague understanding of the rules are worse.

Excuse me, but my "vague" understanding of the rules always works out in my favor.
Not a single time did I interpret rules in a manner that failed to benefit me.
It's not like it's even cheating because it's the DM's job to double-check the rules, not the player's.
>tips fedora

Having to have the DM explain how basic mechanics work every time you have to roll them is not working in anyone's favour and I don't think anyone has ever argued that.

Play some White Wolf games and you'll run into them.

Fuck, I would deal with the RAWtard people a hundred times before I have to deal again with the guy who constantly "well actually"s the ST and complains loudly that what just happened is impossible because of [Obscure fluff reason X].

Let the GM fucking do his thing, man.

Fluff lawyers are why I avoid established settings.

>tfw you keep reminding the GM people being encumbered, hurt, skill penalties, seldomly used rules and details to hinder your own party

That's what you get for not using the coasters, faggits.

I always remind the GM of penalties and seldom used rules and I don't care if that penalizes another PC. To be fair, I also do that to the detriment of my own PC. Also, I don't make a fuss if the GM goes, "Yeah, you're right but I think I'll keep ignoring that rule in my game."

My reminders offer the GM choice.

...

Yup, had a game of OWoD Mage crash to a halt after a discussion that took the best part of two sessions (And near constant debating in the group chat between the sessions) on whether it would be acceptable for an Islamic character to pray on a private jet...

B-b-b-but L5R is a game that's very ingrained in its lore/setting. Playing "Murderhobos and Mayhem" in the setting will get you killed super quick as starting PCs are not superheroes compared to everyone else.

as a gm, i run homebrew settings to prevent lore nazis, and judicious application of gm fiat to keep lawyers in their place

the players i hate the most are the ones the lumps that just sit by doing little or nothing to contribute to the game, then when they do decide to participate they get outrageously offended that anything bad consequences come from their barely present roleplaying

The peasant railgun does not work, we've been over this. It doesn't work by RAW, and it doesn't work with real world physics. Stop bringing it up.

I wonder if this was the specific moment that that GW decided that armies must deploy something during setup.

No. Players who know the RAW well and advocate for their usage are of great value and must be protected.

It's the guys who refuse to accept "Both your DM and Jeremy Crawford think your reading is bullshit so sit down and play because this is the only 4-hour block that all 6 of us have open for 2 weeks and we are by-God going to make the most of it" that deserve a horrific form of execution reserved only for them.

Attention whores are worse than lawyers. So is the 4clever8you type of metagamer.

The problem is that they tend to be the same that guy.

No, murderhobos who don't give a shit about anything other than being LULRANDUMB and showing how funny they are, they're objectively the worst. A rules lawyer can still enjoy a plot or narrative. A murderhobo only delights in ruining everything for everyone.

Does this really happen? I mean, we joke about it on Veeky Forums, but ....does it really happen at the gaming table?

As for rules lawyers, yeah, they're annoying. It's good to have someone who really knows the rules, but if they have 0 skill in diplomacy at the table, they're annoying.

Rule Zero, bitch.

"Actually, on page 43, it clearly says that when attacking a prone target..."
"Yeah. That doesn't make sense to me."
"No, but it says right here...
"No, I see it, but that's not how I'm playing it."
"You... you can't do that! It's written right here! You can't change the rules!"
"I'm invoking rule zero, which trumps the other rules."
"That's bullshit! It's right here in the book!"
"Please turn to page 3 and read the 3rd paragraph in the second column--the bit about the everything being changeable as desired by the GM."
"Yeah, but..."
"Your argument is clearly in violation of that passage."
"But it says on page 43..."
"And what it says on page 3 trumps that. Now make your attack with the modifiers I described or don't, but I'm through wasting time arguing about this."

You're doing it wrong. Rule zero is for when the rules get in the way of the players enjoying the game. Not for the GM to say "No, I don't care what the rules say, you can't do that." unless it's something that would genuinely hurt everyone's experience.

IF THE BOY HAS NO LAWYER

Perfect pic for that. Weirdly enough, I was thinking about that scene yesterday for some weird reason.

Once upon a time, players loved and respected the GM, and there was no "well if I'd known that, I would've built my character differently/done things differently/had my mom drop me off at a different game store" etc.

Just....play the damn game. I promise I will make it fun for you if you stop being my fucking adversary at the table.

>muh story

The real problem with rule lawyering is that it's inversely powered when compared to video RPGs. In every single type of videogame, you get exceptional bonuses for having knowledge of the before hand. You get gear you would have missed. You get better stats that do more damage. You can fight effectively against hard enemies before you ordinarily should have. The same principles apply to a tabletop RPG except the rules are inherently looser, thus easier to abuse for both parties. As a result, people who play videogames have the dark souls megatwink mentality. They want a level 1 character with end game gear that lets them do insane damage before they should because they can. In tabletop rpgs, the enemies are designed by a human in text and implemented by another human, also in text, and interpreted by a third set of humans reacting to it. If chad thundercock and his rapesteed have their way, he'll breeze through everything but the most awful enemy just by having strong knowledge of the rules, and while that's an asset, to an extent, you never tell a video game that it's wrong. You play by the rules you are given, and that's the way it should be. Sure, you can patch things ad hoc, but in game rule lawyering for the sake of rule lawyering is just obnoxious.

Just play Paranoia until they get over that mentality.

I love it when rules lawyers do a 180 and start arguing the spirit of things. Rule zero places the power of decision in the GM's hands and underlines the fact that the rules are subordinate to their judgment. A GM can absolutely say "I don't care what the rules say; you can't do that". It's well within his power. Now, if he's being a dick and shutting down players without good reason, they can certainly have a discussion with him about it after the session is over, and walk out on him if worst comes to worst, but the GM's authority is final in the game he's running. And that's the way it should be.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I'm not sure you do either.

Yes, the GM's word is the law and all that. That doesn't mean you're not a bad GM for misusing that power.

>That doesn't mean you're not a bad GM for misusing that power.
Sure. But it's not like a book can't get things wrong too.

>hey I came up with this highly effective tactic using the game rules
>uhh rule zero, you cant use that because I didn't think of it myself
>but this is perfectly legit and this is my character's main fighting style, he can't fight well without it
>no shut up holy shit you fucking rules lawyer YOU'RE KICKED OUT LEAVE REEEEE

>Rule Zero, bitch.
Do you know that rules zero basically just change the rules of the book are law, to the rules of the dm are law?

You basically just change from a lawyer arguing with a judge about the laws, to a kid arguing with his father about what he really must do

Hence why I said "misusing" not "using".

The worst players are those that don't pay attention to the game. They'll sit there on there phones, ignoring everything except when they're called on in a combat turn order. Any time they're outside of combat they'll passive-aggressively urge the rest of the group to "hurry up" or blatantly state "I'm bored, can we move on to the fight?"

Those players are seriously the worst thing in gaming.

I don't think that it is too bad as long as they are consistent, calling out everyone equally instead of intentionally breaking the rules themselves and calling out everyone else. What can really be irksome is in a crunchier system when the game grinds to a halt because they are forcing everyone to look something up.

>Mono Kroot tau army
I guess it isn't all bad

If you're just going to make up bullshit whenever you want, what's the point of having rules at all? You're abusing "the GM is always right" not to enhance everyone's good time, but to justify not only your poor grasp of the rules, but your outright refusal to learn them.

No one wants to play in a stupid magical fairy land where all the rules change based on the GM's almighty whim. Have fun shrieking "MUH RULE ZEROOOOO!" at an empty table jackass.

This is exactly the sort of person who whines about "rules lawyers": asshole DM who doesn't want rules getting in the way of his power trip.

Rules lawyers and optimizers are (mostly) the same type of scum that are just afraid to play games which have hard-bordered rules and consequences, because you can't really "lose" a TTRPG but you can "win harder" by being a pedantic dick, and ruining everyone's time. ITS NOT WRONG TO PLAY WELL they will cry while completely missing that games with human resolution systems are not and can never be objective pursuits. Sorry scrubs.

You see these brilliant souls shrivel up in any game which has a clear win/loss condition that is enforced by a neutral system (aka, videogames, etc).

Functionally, what rules lawyering and optimizing are about is the fear of losing. Because losing is unfun. Once you realize that, it's pretty easy to control those types.

Not true as a player I found not knowing the rules at all gave the GM instant credibility allowing me to focus on other non-treasonous thoughts.

It also has a sort of Mystique to the whole affair tho it does say something along the lines "we know your going to read it and lie because your a horrible person" that didn't mean yes read it just make sure and lie about it.

No. Assholes are the worst kind of player to have.

Some assholes may be rules lawyers, but not all rules lawyers are assholes.

Yeah I get that, but I'm still a complete newbie who isn't used to playing essentially a game of bureaucracy. I'm the kind of person who'd tend to try to do things that are right instead of always following the law of the land and courts. I'm the kind of person who, if we were playing a modern game set in a police department, I'd be a cowboy cop.
I'm not asking for rules to be bent, I just want a chance to learn. I can absorb rules and crunch easily from the rulebooks, but I'm better at learning lore/setting through experiencing it.

I have seen it happen quite a few times. It is uncommon, but not rare by any means. It mostly happens with younger players who haven't figured out how to get laid and thus too horny for their own good.

>Play GURPS.
>"Nope, sorry, we're not using that rule now, we'll see about it after we're done with this session."
Problem solved.

Read the goddamn books, take Etiquette and Courtier at reasonable levels, and if you have doubts ask to make rolls about shit your character should know by virtue of having high skills in that area.

The way to deal with rules lawyers and powergamers is to make enemies exactly as capable as players.

You want to be a half-giant with a spiked chain who specializes in trip attacks? Okay, sure. Oh look, here's a whole tribe of fire giants that does the same thing. They're the main enemy in this setting.

It does make sense. Why wouldn't the people of the world do things that are effective?

My favorite DM is a former powergamer who counters cheese with cheese, but otherwise doesn't bring it into the game.

Depends on the type of game, but generally the rules decide which actions you can and cannot take. If you do something that's against the rules you're the one making the mistake.

My groups have pretty much always been strong believers in GM authority (granted, that's a viewpoint I helped cultivate in many of them). Tying a GM's hands does little to prevent a bad GM from being bad, and just gets in the way of a good GM. This is not a war game where strict adherence to the rules is necessitated by the fact that you have opposed parties vying for supremacy and likely no neutral arbiter. A GM is there to run the game, so let him do his job. Anybody who would throw a shit-fit over that is not somebody I'd want at my table anyway.

>asshole DM who doesn't want rules getting in the way of his power trip.
A GM doing his job isn't a power trip. You're confusing having authority with the abuse of authority.

>A GM doing his job isn't a power trip. You're confusing having authority with the abuse of authority.

"Take a -10 penalty to this check because I say so" is not GM doing his job.

How is that relevant when it comes to World of Darkness? I suppose it would be fine as long as it is in sync with the correct time to pray and it is okay to move around the plane at that time.