|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2018 20:24:39 GMT -5
There are really two approaches to play of D&D.
One group favors everyone having the rules memorized and no deviation from BtB is allowed. In this style of play the players continually police the DM for adherence to the rules so that they get every advantage. They are assured of always winning and never losing, never dying. This is the Rules Lawyer style of play (aka New School).
The other group favors only the DM knowing the rules, but he doesn't play with his nose in the rulebook trying to make sure he does it "right", no he keeps the game moving and makes a ruling when needed. He knows the rules well enough that he can rule on the fly and stay within his vision for his campaign and the players trust him not to take advantage of them by favoring the monsters or to coddle them by fudging in their favor if they are making stupid mistakes and bad decisions. No this group knows that the DM is there to be as unbiased as humanly possible and to provide options. They know it is up to them to make good decisions and that the DM is not there to fix stupid.
This is the Role Player style of play(aka Old School).
The second option is the one I prefer, how about you?
Some say it is not a rule set, it is a style of play and the rules don't matter, but is that really the case?
Does anyone seriously think that all rule-sets are neutral in the style of play that they encourage and are designed to facilitate?
Spoiler alert, I think the idea that rule-sets are neutral to style of play is bogus.
Which sounds like more fun, "The three players take an hour to come to a decision about the actions they will take, during that time the DM is prohibited from rolling a wandering monster check or having the hoard of trolls that surprised the players do anything. Once the action starts each melee round takes an hour."
Or "The players dither for five minutes and are indecisive, the DM proceeds with the action, whether it is rolling wandering monsters or having the hoard of trolls that surprised the players attack."
Nah! In the second group the players know not to dither in indecision and immediately reacted with preplanned actions in the event they are surprised.
I know which one sounds like more fun to me, both as the DM and as the player.
How about you, which sounds like more fun to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 13, 2018 21:16:12 GMT -5
Objection! Leading the witness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 22:09:13 GMT -5
Objection! Leading the witness.  |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 13, 2018 22:10:41 GMT -5
You turned my double-layered joke into a triple-layered one @piper!!! Well done, sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2018 22:35:43 GMT -5
Joke?!?! Where?!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Mar 13, 2018 23:08:51 GMT -5
Role-play over Rule-lawyering. Benign Referee fiat over Player tyranny; we are ALL supposed to have fun - not be in constant conflict over how BtB the game is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 23:53:43 GMT -5
I prefer rules lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 14, 2018 1:10:46 GMT -5
Only when properly seasoned. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2018 7:35:24 GMT -5
Only when properly seasoned. And a nice charcoal coating. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bloody Nine on Mar 14, 2018 8:10:42 GMT -5
Only when properly seasoned. And a nice charcoal coating. Don't forget to beat them first to tenderize them. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 14, 2018 14:09:23 GMT -5
I prefer players that play as if they are there as their characters. Whatever that is a reflection of their own self with the abilities of the character or a completely new personality it doesn't matter to me. While I like doing funny voices and roleplaying different personalities, I realize it not everybody cup of tea. So when I referee, I learn to make it work both ways and everything in between.
The same applies for rule lawyers, first and foremost don't play per the rules, play as if you are there actually doing the things your character. Once you figure out what you are doing, then we will figure which rules are needed to resolve the situation.
However I do like to be consistent about things so I don't mind player pointing out inconsistencies. One thing that stifles roleplaying if the way thing work keep changing from session to session despite the same or similar circumstances.
By play I don't mean any type of live action, I mean you assess the circumstance, react accordingly to whatever plans and motivation you have for your character, and speak in first person as your character.
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2018 15:36:53 GMT -5
However I do like to be consistent about things so I don't mind player pointing out inconsistencies. One thing that stifles roleplaying if the way thing work keep changing from session to session despite the same or similar circumstances. Rules lawyers are not those that point out inconsistencies or that the DM forgot how he ruled the last time out, Rules Lawyers are those that point out that you are a really bad person because you are not following the RAW and that you need to immediately stop running the game your way and return to the RAW in the most holy rulebooks where all rules are graven in stone as mandated by the most holy Gygax in his up on the Soapbox sermons (rants). |
|
|
|
Post by docsammy on Mar 14, 2018 17:27:43 GMT -5
Role-Players, hands down.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 14, 2018 21:25:38 GMT -5
However I do like to be consistent about things so I don't mind player pointing out inconsistencies. One thing that stifles roleplaying if the way thing work keep changing from session to session despite the same or similar circumstances. Rules lawyers are not those that point out inconsistencies or that the DM forgot how he ruled the last time out, Rules Lawyers are those that point out that you are a really bad person because you are not following the RAW and that you need to immediately stop running the game your way and return to the RAW in the most holy rulebooks where all rules are graven in stone as mandated by the most holy Gygax in his up on the Soapbox sermons (rants). Being partially deaf in general sucks, but not in this instance. If a person this is rude I get a lot of mileage out of "Sorry I didn't hear that clearly, could you repeat that again." Or just outright pretend I didn't hear them.  On a more serious note, because I am 50% deaf I tend to use RAW. Make things easier in terms communicating how thing works. But for me it limited to resolving what folks attempt to do as their character. Everything that concerns the life of the setting remains my call. What you quoted is not how I handle people being rude as Rules Lawyers. It part and parcel of how I manage things to keep a campaign running smoothly. As for rule lawyers, if my default techniques don't drive home the message, then I will firmly explain that the final call resides with me and that they should be focused on what happening to their character and stop the metagaming. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 14, 2018 21:59:24 GMT -5
I'd settle with either, as long as they were also half-nude amazons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 0:33:20 GMT -5
I prefer role lawyers. Or do I prefer rules players?
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 15, 2018 0:36:34 GMT -5
I prefer role lawyers. Or do I prefer rules players? Player lawyers maybe? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 4:59:44 GMT -5
Must I pick one?  I guess, all told -- I'll take a someone emoting with a lot of thee, thou, and verily sprinkled into their speech over someone who has "the rules" memorized and argues them with all the fervor of F. Lee Baily defending O. J. Simpson. Neither has been a problem for me, though I'm familiar with issues others have had, I game (and have always with few exceptions) gamed with a great bunch of players. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 15, 2018 5:17:35 GMT -5
It's not an option of either/or. It is an open system as designed. It is the choice of the DM to either close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only. At one extreme we have those who would say under such an available construct that they play btb (written rules used as is) with no variability; and then those who would use open variability in lesser to greater degrees as the "middle span"; and those who state that the system is always contingently variable depending on the direction of play and the resulting inputs/outputs that would allow ongoing system redefinitions in both conceptual and rules terms (the cross functioning of the Conceptual system with the Mechanics, i.e., Arneson's initial system condition deriving from his systems architecture I describe in DATG).
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 9:37:21 GMT -5
It's not an option of either/or. It is an open system as designed. It is the choice of the DM to either close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only. At one extreme we have those who would say under such an available construct that they play btb (written rules used as is) with no variability; and then those who would use open variability in lesser to greater degrees as the "middle span"; and those who state that the system is always contingently variable depending on the direction of play and the resulting inputs/outputs that would allow ongoing system redefinitions in both conceptual and rules terms (the cross functioning of the Conceptual system with the Mechanics, i.e., Arneson's initial system condition deriving from his systems architecture I describe in DATG). You are missing my point. I fully agree with everything you have said regarding the DM and his choice to close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only. What I am objecting to is the players, the group called Rules Lawyers who say that the DM should only be allowed to run the game "btb (written rules used as is) with no variability" as the only option. IMO the DM should be the one who chooses how to run the game with the whole spectrum of options you have laid out at his command. I was just asking if people would prefer to play with Role Players, that is to say those who are fine with the DM being in charge and choosing where on the spectrum he wants to run his game. Or would they accept as players Rules Lawyers who want to dictate to the DM his choices or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 15, 2018 10:45:00 GMT -5
It's not an option of either/or. It is an open system as designed. It is the choice of the DM to either close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only. At one extreme we have those who would say under such an available construct that they play btb (written rules used as is) with no variability; and then those who would use open variability in lesser to greater degrees as the "middle span"; and those who state that the system is always contingently variable depending on the direction of play and the resulting inputs/outputs that would allow ongoing system redefinitions in both conceptual and rules terms (the cross functioning of the Conceptual system with the Mechanics, i.e., Arneson's initial system condition deriving from his systems architecture I describe in DATG). You are missing my point. I fully agree with everything you have said regarding the DM and his choice to close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only. What I am objecting to is the players, the group called Rules Lawyers who say that the DM should only be allowed to run the game "btb (written rules used as is) with no variability" as the only option. IMO the DM should be the one who chooses how to run the game with the whole spectrum of options you have laid out at his command. I was just asking if people would prefer to play with Role Players, that is to say those who are fine with the DM being in charge and choosing where on the spectrum he wants to run his game. Or would they accept as players Rules Lawyers who want to dictate to the DM his choices or lack thereof. Well, my point answers that. This is a matter of what the DM chooses, not the players, re, "It is the choice of the DM to either close down or expand its functions according to want and proclivity only." Players who object to that are not conducive to the DM's "wants and proclivities," are they? You would have, under that guide, a game constructed and overseen by player committee, and that is not how OD&D was originally proposed; the DM's structure is final, whether it be fluid or static. Gary, Arneson and myself have stated that many times; and in my redescribing the system ranges why that is important for it allows differing DM POV's to manifest, the latter which I consider the paramount issue which my answer, as quoted above, was embedded in. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 11:17:26 GMT -5
Players who object to that are not conducive to the DM's "wants and proclivities," are they? Oh, I agree with you completely, but the module generations do not. You would have, under that guide, a game constructed and overseen by player committee, and that is not how OD&D was originally proposed; the DM's structure is final, whether it be fluid or static. Gary, Arneson and myself have stated that many times; and in my redescribing the system ranges why that is important for it allows differing DM POV's to manifest, the latter which I consider the paramount issue which my answer, as quoted above, was embedded in. Again, I completely agree, but the module generations do not. No, most forums and blogs are entirely of the closed system variety. This forum seems to be the last outpost of the open system that you describe. I sure haven't found it anywhere else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 11:29:04 GMT -5
Well, yeah. That's actually the whole point of this.
It's also why Rob hates modules with such a passion, and I agree.
But I have to say, that's not what "Rules Lawyer" means, or at least not what it originally meant in wargaming. A "Rules Lawyer" is/was somebody who will argue every niggling little aspect of every rule when it goes against him. It's a wargaming term, not an RPG term.
And THAT comes from British wargaming, where a wargame was presided over by a "judge." It reached the point where each team would appoint a "Rules Lawyer" to argue their case to the judge when there was a conflict in interpretation of the rules.
So now you know. And knowing is half the battle!
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 12:20:16 GMT -5
Well, yeah. That's actually the whole point of this. It's also why Rob hates modules with such a passion, and I agree. But I have to say, that's not what "Rules Lawyer" means, or at least not what it originally meant in wargaming. A "Rules Lawyer" is/was somebody who will argue every niggling little aspect of every rule when it goes against him. It's a wargaming term, not an RPG term. And THAT comes from British wargaming, where a wargame was presided over by a "judge." It reached the point where each team would appoint a "Rules Lawyer" to argue their case to the judge when there was a conflict in interpretation of the rules. So now you know. And knowing is half the battle! Having not been a wargamer I was not familiar with wargame origin or meaning. I was using the definition as I observe it in action on most of the "old school" forums and blogs. I would not play with the wargame version of a "Rules Lawyer" either. Not the kind of person I want to hang out with. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 15, 2018 13:04:39 GMT -5
Well, yeah. That's actually the whole point of this. It's also why Rob hates modules with such a passion, and I agree. But I have to say, that's not what "Rules Lawyer" means, or at least not what it originally meant in wargaming. A "Rules Lawyer" is/was somebody who will argue every niggling little aspect of every rule when it goes against him. It's a wargaming term, not an RPG term. And THAT comes from British wargaming, where a wargame was presided over by a "judge." It reached the point where each team would appoint a "Rules Lawyer" to argue their case to the judge when there was a conflict in interpretation of the rules. So now you know. And knowing is half the battle! Having not been a wargamer I was not familiar with wargame origin or meaning. I was using the definition as I observe it in action on most of the "old school" forums and blogs. I would not play with the wargame version of a "Rules Lawyer" either. Not the kind of person I want to hang out with. Well, and again, I do not believe that that is an exclusively either or proposition. It was wargamers who created and championed the open systems POV. Others opposed it; just as the majority of RPGers oppose it today. To find the commonality and differences in both mindsets is easily accomplished by addressing the matter from a systems view as Arneson did and as others (like Arnold Hendricks in the earliest review of D&D) failed to do (and which deserved the rebuttal by Gygax in SR #3 because of that). |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 15, 2018 13:08:35 GMT -5
Players who object to that are not conducive to the DM's "wants and proclivities," are they? Oh, I agree with you completely, but the module generations do not. You would have, under that guide, a game constructed and overseen by player committee, and that is not how OD&D was originally proposed; the DM's structure is final, whether it be fluid or static. Gary, Arneson and myself have stated that many times; and in my redescribing the system ranges why that is important for it allows differing DM POV's to manifest, the latter which I consider the paramount issue which my answer, as quoted above, was embedded in. Again, I completely agree, but the module generations do not. No, most forums and blogs are entirely of the closed system variety. This forum seems to be the last outpost of the open system that you describe. I sure haven't found it anywhere else. As I describe in DATG, the module<>rules complicity in and of itself is a closed system interface. It corresponds to the zero-sum model which Arneson vacated to achieve the open systems interface. It is only a very minor, and market oriented, strand of the entire breadth and width available from his concept. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 15, 2018 14:07:22 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another term (rather than Rules Lawyers) for By The Book players. It's a common weakness of English to misuse a word so often that people think the incorrect meaning is the true meaning. (Yet it's a strength, for it creates its vitality and universalism)
Why do I propose we keep the term of Rules Lawyer in its proper definition? Because here we have a word which means something that no other word conveys. It would be a shame to corrupt it as, for example, "decimate" has been. If we do, we shall then be rushing to create a term to replace the one we shall have lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 14:16:16 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another term (rather than Rules Lawyers) for By The Book players. I liked the term purist before rules lawyer came into come into common use. Gary used “barracks room lawyer” in one of the AD&D books (IIRC) and I heard him use that term at a GenCon. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 15, 2018 14:17:51 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another term (rather than Rules Lawyers) for By The Book players. It's a common weakness of English to misuse a word so often that people think the incorrect meaning is the true meaning. (Yet it's a strength, for it creates its vitality and universalism) Why do I propose we keep the term of Rules Lawyer in its proper definition? Because here we have a word which means something that no other word conveys. It would be a shame to corrupt it as, for example, "decimate" has been. If we do, we shall then be rushing to create a term to replace the one we shall have lost. Words that are spirited up to describe the interaction of abstract concepts such as those exampled by an RPG are going to be fraught with parsing difficulties. That is why systems thinking (and its terms/meanings) are generally much better in describing this. Thus the actions of rules lawyers (the sum of their actions) is to constrain the system to a particular view (thus a regulated output) alone, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 15:00:00 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another term (rather than Rules Lawyers) for By The Book players. I liked the term purist before rules lawyer came into come into common use. Gary used “barracks room lawyer” in one of the AD&D books (IIRC) and I heard him use that term at a GenCon. I don't like using the term purist for this and the reason is that purist should be used for that open expansive unlimited game or to use the words from robkuntz IMO the proper use of the word purist should be reserved for To use purist to describe the view stated as Is to confuse purist with narrow mindedness which IMO is where so much of the drive to the railroaded module paradigm comes from is the misuse of language. I do not like using words with good meanings to describe bad things and vice versa. It has been said that Arneson played like a child with his open expansive curiosity driven exploration of possibilities, that to me would be purity/purist. |
|
