I like the rules. I like having a mechanism in place to resolve character success or failure. I don't respect GMs who are inconsistent or biased in their rulings. On the other hand, GMs do sometimes need to eyeball things and assign a quick modifier or threshold, to keep the game moving. They need to use a bit of common sense (things like the aforementioned capping a sleeping guard). They also need to mediate rules disputes and interpret murky areas.

And that, to me, is where you have the problem of so-called rules lawyers. It is when people try to exploit ambiguously worded rules, or endlessly argue over how a rule is interpreted, that it kills the game. If they want to do that, they should come here.

This a thousand times, I can take being proved wrong. I can assert that a different situation then what's specifically laid out exists. Situational modifiers are in fact mostly guidelines. What I always have a problem with are people who want to use the rules as a cudgel against me.

When I GM Shadowrun, I do not mind Rules Lawyers. Because I am better at it than they are and they have no ground to stand on since I run my games practically RAW.

When I play, the people I really hate isn't the rules lawyers (because they could know the rules really well but bad at expressing themselves), but the rules lobbyists. They lobby the GM to use certain house rules, sometimes during chargen or worse during gameplay. These guys are usually good at expressing themselves, they have to be in order to convince the GM to use those house rules. Unless you are as good as they are socially in real life, you are not likely to be able to convince the GM otherwise. You either end up playing their game which is worse than the GM house ruling on his own initiative or you don't play which means you just wasted time and effort creating a character, setting aside time for gaming, etc.

At least with the rules lawyers, the rules are followed.

I'd argue that is the definition of a rules lawyer, as I feel encyclopedic knowledge of the rules/game mechanics does not make you a 'rules lawyer', that term being used almost exclusively as a pejorative. I completely agree with your second statement.

Yea I just think the whole distinction of "This action is ok" and "This action while being rude is not ok" doesn't need to be made. We don't really need to define new terms like Rules Encyclopedia or Rules Councilor as the "nice" Rules Lawyer. So I just tend to keep it simple and say there's nothing wrong with being a rules lawyer, everyone just needs to keep a cool head and not act like idiots.

Idiots are fine. This is an RPG, after all. Jerks is the problem.

No. It starts by throwing all the rules-lobbyists in the ocean. Rules lawyers tell you what the rules say for a particular situation, it doesn't matter if you are the GM or not. The rules lobbyists tell the GM how they want him to rule in any situation.

Miss the first part there? Not disagreeing that the GM needs to adjudicate ambiguous situations. My point was that the people who attempt to out-and-out exploit the rules are more of a problem than someone who thinks a glare modifier shouldn't apply. Although the latter can be if they argue about it for twenty minutes.

Actually, I was going to be snarky and say this earlier but refrained until you brought the topic back up, the first to go in a revolution are the tyrants

Mea culpa

You could always determine disputes before they go out of control by Paper, Scissors, Rock, Spock if needed.

I live by the golden rule personally: The GM is always right. Doesnt hurt anyone to just follow that, except the rules lawyers.. But thats something I don't particularly care about I'm biased.

FYI Glyph i was agreeing with you, I just quoted the part I agreed with most.

Only if the GM *is* right, nemafow.

Yeah, much of this discussion comes down to whether or not members of your group (GM or players) are fundamentally anti-social. If everyone is pretty much trying to have fun (GM included) I'd argue it's generally safe to just roll with the flow of the GM's decisions. However, in the event the GM is terribly ignorant, oddly destructive, etc; you'd probably do best to talk about at some point.

Rules Lawyers are fine and I find it sometimes very helpful when a player is more familiar with the intricacies of the rules than I am. Especially those rules that pertain to their character. So long as its understood that the GM is final arbiter and Judge and has the freedom and power to over-rule in situations where RAW is inconsistent, illogical, lacking, or just plain silly (or maybe not silly enough depending on the game).

If its not the GM being an asshat, I don't care if its right or wrong, as long as it's fun.
He has his reasons for calling it, but if he doesnt and just decided 'why' not, then no.

Disclaimer: my personal view, may DIFFER from all creatures big and small so take it in stead.

That's what I said.

As a GM I usually dont have problem with rules lawyers as I am expected to be the only ones to read the rules of all and every games we play and explain them (I usually dont mind as I love reading rulebooks, having several of them in strategical place (toilets, bedside, computer room...)).

What problem I have is with Realism Lawyers... wich is a bigger problem as thoses usually dont know the rules but presume the rules should say That because That is the way they think the situation should resolve realistically.

As a player I do a lot of Rules Mentioning, but that is usually just to point out things forgotten. And because I want to help preserve a balanced environment.

For me Rules are here to balance things and produce an even and interesting field for everyone. To comply and try not to forgot or forfeit any rules is part of the GM charge. Very rarely should you go against a written rule (rare case of obvious mistake, errata). You can provide for additionnal house rules for situation not taken into account or adjust modifiers to the situation, but changing the written rules on the fly because of your whim is a violation of the game balance and will run the fun of the scenario (for me).

A GM that constantly change the rules is like a player that player with loaded dice.

I had a conversation with a Realism Lawyer about the nature of guns that can fire fully-automatically. He was livid that he couldn't fire exactly the number of bullets he wanted to, constantly trying to explain to me how guns worked in real life. An hour later, he was still going and everyone just wanted to leave. It was one of those unbearable moments in my history as a GM. Massive sigh.

Your first and last error. When you know the guy, dont enter the conversation, shoot to kill as soon as he open it

Yeah, absolute nightmare situation. Though sometimes you get funny results with people who believe they know how a gun works. In one of those rare games where I got to play rather than GM, one guy was going on about how his gun could only spray and pray and couldn't possibly be used in burst turned the baddy I was standing next to into swiss cheese. Guess what happened to my shiny character.

Honestly, I had a few laughs and he owed me many, many drinks.

Except:

Rules lawyer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.[1] Often this term is used pejoratively, as the "rules lawyer" is seen as an impediment to moving the game forward.[2] The use of this term is common in wargaming and role playing games.[3] The term may have originated in military service, with sea lawyer (in the Navy)[4] and "barracks lawyer" in the United States Army.[5] Nevertheless, the habit of players to argue in a legal fashion over rule implementation was noted early on in the history of Dungeons and Dragons.[6][7] Rules lawyers are one of the "player styles" covered in Dungeon Master for Dummies.[8] The rules of the game Munchkin include various parodies of rules lawyer behavior.

The guy who just knows the rules and will help out, is not a Rules Lawyer. The above Wikipedia definition is what a "Rules Lawyer" is. They exploit the fact that no system can be perfect in order to gain an advantage - usaully over, ans to the detriment of the rest of the group/game.

Now we need a term for the guy who just knows the rules, but doesn't rules lawyer with their knowledge...any suggestions?

Which is why I always make changes to the premade adventures in case my players have read it. I even went so far as to make it clear to them that reading up on an adventure will be of little help due to that.

Result? They don't bother reading up on the adventure (or if they do, they keep it on the down-low). Then again, they don't know where I've gotten the premades.

Playing a table top RPG is not the same thing as playing pick-up basketball. For starters, basketball is a hell of a lot easier. Second, RPGs are designed for intimate group settings. Typically friends or at least people who respect each other as acquaintances. People who only play in conventions or other formal settings are only receiving a surface-level experience.

Typically, the one organizing the game is the one playing GM. It's common courtesy to defer to GM judgement and if disagreements occur to simply move on with the game and then address them privately. GM's interpretation of a rule is law as he's the one telling the story and an alternate interpretation might wreck or invalidate the story and work he's put into the campaign. And is it really worth it as a player to derail a campaign just to be proven "right" in a disagreement?

However, if a GM is creating house rules its his responsibility to inform the players of what they are ahead of time so that they can prepare. Also, if interpretation of rules differs from that of a GM and this difference results in a character that the player doesn't want to use, the GM should always allow the player to make reasonable changes to stats without penalty.

Absolutely. I doubt anyone can disagree.

OP asked about mistakes, not interpretations, house rules, etc.. Mistakes are just that, errors. Correct them, smile, play on.

Well for the record on the pre-mades, normally I have no time or patience for them. But considering the whole point of a living campaign is allowing people to play persistant characters in an ongoing campaign at multiple venues I can't exactly change it on a whim. I don't have this problem otherwise. Personally in this instance I've made it clear to my players that reading the adventure ahead of time and not identifying that's the case to me will be considered a form of cheating. Life is too short to cheat at table top RPG's, on the other hand life is too short to put up with cheaters.

The problem is that the character is defaulting, meaning he has little to no familiarity with guns. If he is aiming at their head he is making a called shot. Assuming he actually hits the shooter he is going to do more like 10 damage. Unfortunately mister never used a gun before has a decent chance of accidantaly leaving the safety on or shooting himself as he fumbles around with the gun (high chance of glitch or critical glitch). Any trained character making the samed called shot plus aiming is going to easily be able to deal 10+ boxes even with a hold out.

In this case I think the existing rules adequetly represent the situation, they just have to be used.

Randy comes from the first two rules lawyers I came into contact with were both named Randy, well one was Randall and went by Randy.

For me a rules lawyer is the guy who wants all of the advantages, he mentions the rule(s) that help him and conveniently 'forgets' or doesn't mention the rule(s) that hinders him.

Compared to the Rules Guru who mentions the rules, whether they help or hinder.

Personally I find most issues that pop up around rules lawyers and such to be about trust and not the actual game rules.

Yea I have seen that behavior as well, oh you remember the damage value on the flechet pistol you use but conveniently forgot to mention the bonus to armor, nice. Or just mention the damage code to me when I ask for it but conveniently forget to mention what type it is.

That Randy is the main rules lawyer, but the other version(to me) is the guy who also tries to run the game through the GM. He is always first and second guessing the GM.

Some time's you've just played it before I've had games like that one where I'd ran the modual before and one where I'd play it at least 2 times before and ran it once. It get quite hard no to metagame then. Though some times I have taken the GM aside and asked if they are removing certain BS parts one adventure where it rules out an aquatic attack my randomly putting a deadly sea critter in settal's port with no link to the party your after or any legwork way to find out it's there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but called shots to the head only serve to bypass armor, not to increase damage. You can do either or, but not both. I don't have my books on me, but even if it does increase damage it will probably only give you +2 to the DV.

Let's say that the character is Joe Ganger. He has a holdout that does 4P and he has a 3 in pistols (somewhat trained) and 3 (average) agility. He sneaks up on Bob Civillian in his sleep, who has 3 body. Joe is at point blank range (+4), and takes aim twice (+2). He now has 12 dice to hit, not bad. He'll do an average of 8 damage, Bob will soak an average of 1. Bob (probably) lives, but he's in some bad, bad shape.

Okay, so with all the modifiers it's not as bad as I thought. Even so, I think you should able to consistently one-hit somebody up to a body of 5 or so with an executioner style, point-blank headshot with little training. Unless it's a troll. I could see a trog living through a headshot, it's not like they use that thing anyway.

When you are also a GM it is hard not to second guess when you are playing.

That's why I tend to inadvertedly make the life of others GMs quite miserable when playing because I second guess a lot plots and situations. And also because I tend to be fairly more organised than the other players usually are. Things like securing every access and exit of a building before going in, keeping one player in overwatch and thus could pose problem to GM that are used to more straightforward characters.

The trick is that I didn't ask myself : What would have I planned as a GM in that situation ? I ask myself what could happen and what my character (usually planning, leader or tactician (easier to play that way)) would do or plan on matter of contingency ?

IK: I kind of do that too. I find that many gamers are used to carrying over the same style of play from game to game, like from DnD to Shadowrun. So when I jumped into this group that I am now GMing for, I planned and thought up contingency plans and got seriously frustrated when the other players wouldn't share critical information needed to make the plans with in the first place. I had to teach the rest of the group that we could all be seeing and hearing what the other people were (via commlinks) - including the hacker! They treated the game like it was DnD and not a post-modern game with all that it entails. (Better communications being one of the biggest differences.)

I always follow what a friend calls the "3.5" rule (No, not D&D3.5)

If it takes more than 3.5 seconds to look something up, houserule it. It's probably not a major gameplay mechanic that you can't logically figure out. That said, if someone understands it, and corrects you POLITELY, and can demonstrate it quickly, good.

A called shot to the head can be interpreted as either a called shot to ignore armor or a called shot to do extra damage. Extra damage called shots are generally better and can yeild +4 dv for only a -4 to hit, which is always worth doing if you are shooting at a relatively easy to hit, or unaware, target. Probably still not lethal, but its a low caliber weapon, bump it up to a warhawk with EX ammo and your average person will be left dead or bleeding to death, which in 4E means your 3 body person has less than 30 seconds for Docwagon to show up before he bleeds to death

Either way I don't think (I said think, meaning this is my opinion and not fact) the shooting an unconscious person example is a good example of needing a houserule, since the rules do allow for the shooter to significantly increase his damage. Even if a kill isn't made, the target will be suffering some decent dice penalties from the hit. Now the current 'bleed out' rules on the other hand, might need a bit of tweaking. I love the Kill Bill like high blood pressure that people have in 4E, I mean really, how does Docwagon save people with 10 minute response times when the average person bleeds to death in 20-30 seconds?

Called shots are either armor negating or damage boosting. +4 DV (as was just mentioned) is awesome here. Point Blank is +2 (see p. 152 SR4A) and you can only take aim once with a skill of 3 as your skill divided by two rounded down is the cap (see p. 148 SR4A). It's possible that a holdout might not have the stopping power to penetrate the skull, even a close range, depending on the circumstances. And finally (!), doing more than 7 boxes of damage from a single attack opens up the potential for the optional severe wound rules, which allow the GM to apply overflow like bleeding damage, brain damage or loss of a limb.

Lastly, on the subject of bizarre murderist fantasies (involving sleeping citizens and drug addled gangers), I see no reason you must shoot the sleeper only once (you get a second Simple Action for a reason). 8DV + 4DV is nothing to scoff at.

It's true: the guy really might just have a hard skull, and a little .22 might not pierce it. Of course, if it *does*, it'll bounce around inside his brain… Ew. But, anyway, every RPGer knows that certain situations are based on drama instead of dice.

6th edition is awesome. While it is huge, it really did improve the game in quite a few ways.

I'm blessed with an awesomely bad memory. I'm like univeral brotherhood, I know there is like insect spirits but that is it.

Currently having more trouble with a GM who doesn't know the rules and keeps randomly inserting V:TM rules into our game because she likes it better..and then getting really pissed at me when I'm confused about basic things being not as expected because she didn't bother to learn it.

As a GM i dont think the PCs are entitled to know exactly how the world works
and since my players usually dont differentiate between player and character knowledge
there is nothing wrong with the smoke penalty changing with every grenade.

Exact knowledge is for tabletops (warhammer etc.).
In a roleplaying game you should not be able to calculate the outcome of every action before you take it.
you dont have to know that the room is 24m long and that you can cross it in 1 combat turn.
Its more fun and a lot more scary that way.

It depends. This is a techno-future game about professionals. It's their job to use their built-in rangefinders to get exact room sizes, and to know their personal physical abilities down to, yes, a numeric level. They have computers in their head to constantly do this for them.

They are still mostly (meta)human and not machines (except maybe the 4 cyberlimb guy) so the results may vary.
It is easier to justify this in a medieval setting
but even with computers they only have a split second to make the decision
and thinking in VR isnt faster than moving with wired reflexes 3.

I have to disagree with this- when you're a professional, you get good at judging what you can and can't do on the fly- just like as a cook I know just by the look and texture of something if I've put it together right and how much of what ingrediants go in without measuring- and what to do to fix it without consulting a manual every time.. you -know- what you can and cannot do, inherently, and what things should work in what specific way, unless you're -just- starting out and fumbling through things you've only just read about before.

Exactly. In addition to the wonders of computers (which *are* vastly faster than even Wires 3), practice makes perfect. People intuitively know if they can get across the room before X amount of time, after they've done it all the time as their job.

I can see the conflict of both sides here: Yes, there are these really cool computers to use, but you are still guaging and making a decision and then moving in .33 seconds much of the time. I recently saw video of David Blane holding a cup in his mouth to catch a bullet. The bullet was in the cup and bouncing around a little before he even blinked. Of course, the shot was faster than .33 seconds (it was only 8-10 feet away), but it exemplifies the idea that it does take time to guage, make decision, then actually move. If you want to say that your character takes time to "map" out the situation tactically (i.e., use Percieve in Detail) cool, they can take an action and then get nearly exact information - like down to 1/2 meter or less. Otherwise, it is more like guess work, experienced & skilled guess work, but still guess work. Remember, the combat rounds are only 3 seconds long and when you are doing 2, 3, or even 4 things during that time, wow. That is fast. Very little time to determine that the guard is exactly 27.485 meters from you. Even if your heads up display is showing it, you don't have the time to look at it along with everything else.

Right, but you don't think experienced, skilled, and AR-informed (that is, not *reading* numbers) 'guesswork' isn't good enough to know if you can get across a room? 3 seconds is a really long time for even un-augmented, no-AR professional humans in 2010.

Look at the 'gaming aids' people use today (in WOW, or as GreaseMonkey scripts on websites, etc.). These are basically AR HUDs, often with automation. I can't imagine why a techie character in SR wouldn't have, say, a color-coded visual overlay indicating how far they could move in 0.25 sec intervals. Just as an example, because I know we're not just talking about crossing rooms here.

The point is, SR4 is particularly amenable to huge amounts of 'metagaming' being integrated fully into the IC world. Table talk? Matrix 2.0. HP? Biomonitor. Maps? TacNet, UWB, Mapsoft, Orientation System…

The skilled, experienced guesswork (thanks for the spelling correct here ) can make you think you can cross the room, but not know. A big difference when your life, and others, might be at stake. By keeping the distance somewhat arbitrary you keep a little mystery, which adds tension. When the players know when they can and cannot do something all the time, there is no tension/drama which is what all the adventuring is supposed to interject.

I see what you're saying (you're totally right), but that's what dice are for. People never are wholly sure if they'll make that shot, or that jump, etc. I feel like that's usually enough.

Ha, I think both spellings are equally valid.