Because they don't want to GM. They want to play and be superawesomeguy, but want to tell you how to do it.

If you guys don't want to GM then don't. From the two posters above me I see "headaches" and "frustration" describing their role and a martyr complex isn't helpful at all.

Well, if you're doing it *wrong*… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) The problem here is still the question of mistakes against intentional decisions. In that transcript, it was clear that it was intentional decisions, and that's just called 'being a bad player'.

Ditto, Lanlaorn. As if running a pre-made is really GMing anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

How do you get that at all from what I posted. I didn't say GMing is frustrating. Players who read the adventure your going to run before hand are frustrating. But whatever I guess it is fitting seeing as your post prompted me to start this thread.

In another game system, that I play a lot, I am very rules knowledgeable. I am often called upon to rattle off a rule in game by various players and GM's. I try to never be a rules lawyer, but instead a rules encyclopedian. I am always careful to never question a DM decision, just simply to give facts. If I feel I can do so without offending or disrupting the game, I will point out a mistake. The trick is to be able to give the GM information so they can make an informed decision, while being perfectly accepting if they choose to bend or break said rule.


Rules Encyclopedian = Someone who knows what the book says.

Rules Lawyer = Someone who knows what the book says and demands that the GM follows the rules inflexibly.

Sorry some of us have careers, wives, children, and random house choirs and don't have time to write everything from scratch. It doesn't make us less of a GM it makes us thrifty with our time.

Just teasing, guys. That's a wink emoticon, the universal symbol of 'just teasing'.

Besides, you're on Dumpshock. That's the definition of 'not thrifty with time'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Unfortunately, that's the risk of running a premade.

Where did I get frustration from? Your words:



And yes, my post that you apparently agree with but felt the need to start a new thread to be Devil's Advocate against started this thread. What of it? You know we even discussed and agreed on the difference between mistakes and decisions like 4 posts later in that other thread, so I'm not sure what your goal is at all.

I'm at work (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) so it is being thrifty with my time.

Hahaha, fair enough!

You got frustration from my words in speaking about a player reading the adventure before hand. I didn't agree with your post at all, and I have no goal beyond just seeing what peoples opinions on this are.

You admit it yourself here, describing rules lawyering as "very helpful", so how exactly do we disagree?



Also I meant your second use of the word "frustration" where you're describing being the GM. This part here:



So, yea.

I like GMing. I have no love for the Randy who doesn't want to GM but wants to run the game. I am not a Randy's mouthpiece.
I found it odd that a Randy never GMed until I played under a Randy(new to the area and didn't realize that he was a Randy). Fast forward 20 years and all the Randys I have met fall under that same type. a self-absorbed jackass. ymmv

I think the distinction between 'rules encyclopedian' (AWFUL name, though) and 'rules lawyer' is helpful, because most people exclusively use 'lawyer' as a synonym for 'jerk player'. As soon as you even *say* 'rules lawyer', you're begging the question, and there's nothing useful that can possibly be said. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Also, 'Randy'? EW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

You know, I read the first post and I can’t help but be extremely furious. The GM is a player too. I’m reading all sorts of posts saying the GM makes the house rules, which is complete bulldrek. The group makes the decision, because everyone is involved. If the group decides that they want to have additional effects from smoke grenades more power too them. However, if the GM decides alone, that he wants more realism in the game and the rest of the players don’t, that’s punishing the players. It could be killing their fun. While I hate stalling the game, it only takes a couple of seconds to take a group vote as to what the current course of action is, find the rule or agree on one to wing it. If you decided to wing it, after the session you can look back and see how it worked out, discuss it, decide if everyone liked how it worked, and then make it a new house rule.

Also, for all those people out there who keep saying “If you don’t like it, you can leave” That is childish. It might take 5-10 minutes as a group to determine what the correct rule is, or what the new rule will be. I don’t know about y’all but I sure don’t have a whole lot of Shadowrun groups around here that I can just throw them away and pick up another no problem.

I agree that the GM is a player in a group; but he's not just a player, he's the captain. He invests more time and effort than the rest and often receives the least reward. Rules Lawyers, in their native habitat are not actually interested in the rules, they are far more interested in power and control. A player providing useful clarification would never be considered a bad influence, except when it is to the obvious disadvantage of the group. But most rules lawyers are using rules only when it favours them. The most common examples are demanding to know where all the negative modifiers in a combat scenario come from, then arguing over each one (see the 'prone people can't dodge' style of argument from a previous post) which takes time and causes extreme frustration. The other really common problem is the carefully worded innocent question (particularly while you're distracted) which, after your mumbled "Yeah sure, whatever." response, results in the equivalent of a GM ambush, which always starts off surreal ("I pull out my grapple gun.") and ends with bloody noses ("MONOWIRE AND MICROWIRE ARE NOT THE SAME!!" /fisticuffs). I know that some people, when encountering problematic players, just have them move on to a new group. And other people when encountering GMs they don't agree with do the same. The rest of us don't or can not find new groups, merely because we've known our group since childhood and we'd no sooner throw them out of our Shadowrun games than tell them we can never go out to dinner with them again because the way they eat does not agree with us. Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad.

My personal pet-peeve as a player...


When someone runs a game but has obviously not even read the rulebook (or just skimmed it). It's even worse when they decide to make-up 'house' rules to cover situations that are explicitly outlined in the rulebooks.
I'm not a rules lawyer, but I know most of the rules most of the time and if I wanted to play freeform 'lets pretend' I wouldn't have even bothered showing up. Instead I'd attend the local improv group or audtion for a play... which I actually do as well, and even then... both those other 'pretend' creative outlets have rules too.

It's easy enough to say, "Well then just leave the game and find a better GM" when you live in an area overflowing with RPG Geeks. Unfortunately the ratio of roleplayers and mundane mortals is quite low in my neck of the woods in the northern Canadian tundra. That, and anyone I play with is usually a long time real friend, so it's kind of hard to just say' you suxor I'm leaving!'

All this means I don't get to play as much as I would like. It's unfortunate.
I've tried running a few games, but even though I own most of the books for any given system, I'm not a Storyteller-type person. I don't really enjoy running a game world and its many NPCs... I like focusing on one character at a time.
As a player, I just expect..... I don't know..... a game? With rules? As an adult, is that so much to ask? Apparently not so much when playing Monopoly, cards, or Halo... but heaven FORBID we play a roleplaying GAME where everyone is on common ground. Don't get me wrong, I realize that GM fiat is sometimes necessary to help with grey areas in the rules or to keep the story moving (or stupid dice from killing players needlessly)... but is it unreasonable to expect a GM/DM/Storyteller to know what dice to roll just to hit something?

Sorry if I sound a bit bitter. I've just been burned badly a couple times.

One problem with inconsistant rules or mistakes is the player does not know if there is an in game reason, it is the gm's mistake, or if it is the GM's whim.

In the case of the smoke grenades if it was an in game reason the player might think the Fixer that hooked him up whith the grenades cheated him by selling inferior smoke grenades whith acrid smoke.

It might also be the case of being something the player does not know. Like the lone star walking across the roof did not fall through the sky light he is on because he is an illusion, not because of a GM mistake. Some might incorectly chalk up the clue to a GM oversight.

Conversly a player might asume the real lone star officer was able to ignore gravities call because he is an illusion.

I remember a humorus account from some player in a survival horror game. He said it was the scariest game he had ever played but it was because the GM kept making a lot of mistakes and so every thing did add up. The whole party ended up coming up with paranoid theorys for what was going on.

I think asking for clarification is resonable.

[Edit]: Removed TL:DR rant, sorry about that.

I don't really understand the "I don't have the time to learn the rules and I hate when someone corrects my mistakes". First, it's really not that big of a time investment and there are lots of 'cheat sheets' and helpful summary resources for any popular rpg. Secondly, everytime someone points out an error, you're learning the rules, by it's nature it's a temporary phenomenon where eventually no one will be noticing your errors because you won't be making them (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)



This is a ridiculous generalization and I would like to point out how you can replace "Rules Lawyers" with "Bad GMs" and have an equally valid statement.

I'm a rules lawyer in the sense with pre-set rule I have the right to expect certain outcomes. I don't expect for example in a DnD to when I get a rediculausly lucky roll one between life and death that would fuck up my GMs plan/plot if I succeed for me to roll a 20 witch by the RAW is a success no matter what for the GM the then go you still die and be a jerk if he let me roll he should also expect to live with the result. Again in SR a GM randomly and with our prior warning swapping modifiers around is annoying as fuck. I'm expecting say -4 to my roll for what the GM has said. The he sticks a -8 on me with no justification am I goign to raise a point there yes. It will be of the line why -8 from x+y it should be a -4 and that's all you've told me. IF he then gose well theses also z sorry I must of forgotten to tell you and z is reasonable(as in the suns to their backs not well that smoke 'nade was extra smoky) its over if its trying to be a jerk/railroad should I not say well that's no how it should happen?

When I GM; I GM assuming the same of my player I expect them to want me to follow the rules they have to plan there actions around. Also if I generally misremember a modifier and think it to high or low or a misrule something I would love for some one to point it out and not assume there more to the scene or its a house rule I forgot to mention even if it is. Some times we let it slip that once some times we re-do the effect portion of the game depending. If my mistake killed a PC I will go back and let them do it again fixed.

I also have no problem with a player arguing an interpretation of a rule as log as its quick in game. I'm also happy to argue more out of the game but lets not hold it up for every one else.

First off, I love GMing. I miss playing, but I love storytelling.

Second, I have a great group. I've never seen any of them so much as "Rules Lawyers" but more like "Rule Councilors". I think this goes back to the whole thing about proper communication. Early on in our SR4 adventures there were many instances of searching the rule books for the right way to handle things, and I leaned heavily on their input and knowledge.

In regards to that communication, I think it's important to let the players know when something is done outside the scope of the rules for adventure purposes. Sometimes you can't tell them the whole story, or even a part of it, but you can still let them know it wasn't done in error.

That said, sometimes we GMs forget things. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif) Like a recent run when I forgot to give a physical description change to a person that got possessed by a high force plant spirit. I told the astral side of it, the spirit going into the body, but forgot the physical plane. So my players that only see physical roleplayed as though they were fighting someone who just suddenly got wicked strong for no apparent reason, not knowing if I didn't provide the description due to fait or what (running GC so that's a reasonable question). When they asked I pulled a "Oh, my bad", and props to them for calling me on it.

1-I GM and take a very cooperative approach to it. I want my players to get involved in tough rule call moments and help me work through it. We're all there to have a good time. Ultimately, I'm in charge I guess, but my player's opinions mean a lot to me.

2-I think we're getting a little sensitive about a rules lawyer definition. These are people who ruin the game for others with incessant rules quoting and RAW talk. It is important to note that they are rules lawyers not because they love RAW and know the rules well, but because they ruin other player's experiences with their knowledge. Knowledge is good, misuse of it is bad. A rotten apple spoils the bunch and not everyone is made to play table top RPGs. if you have an annoying player get rid of him. Everyone at your table will be happier for it in the long run.
3-Its great when you're GMing and you can write your own stuff, but to belittle GMs who run the pre written stuff is really weak. It is also bunk if you read the adventure beforehand and your actions take away from others' enjoyment of the game by giving away secrets and plot points.

For that very reason, I still prefer the 4th Edition Blue Book to the 5th Edition... and Lord help anyone who gets hit with the 6th Edition Monstrosity...

Keep the Faith