Rules Lawyering

From: Martin Dick <martin.dick_at_...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:03:49 +1000


>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, David Cake wrote:
>
> > At 3:11 PM +0200 22/6/00, Frank Rafaelsen wrote:
> > >I hope not. By leaving the affinities undefined you first of all lower the
> > >learning curve for the players, prevent rules-lawyering, and open up for
> > >player innovation and creativity.
> >
> > Any feat that is confusing or controversial in meaning raises
> > the learning curve, and encourages arguments about what it actually
> > means if your version stretches a straight forward explanation (aka
> > rules lawyering).
>
> Not at all. And I mean that seriously. There is nothing to be
> rule-lawering over. A player asks his GM if something is possible with the
> power. The GM says no. There is no fine print, there is no exceptions,
> there is no ambigous text that can be twisted and used as an
> argument. Rules-lawyering is much more of a problem in rules-heavy games.

Hmmm, this doesn't sound like anyone of the rules-lawyers I know or play with, ambiguity is one of the two essences of rules-lawyering along with perversity. And one name/phrase is the ultimate in ambiguity, it can
mean whatever I can twist it into.

Unless you have players who are happy to have their creative/perverse ideas
(depending upon point of view) cut off by fiat by their GM, there is plenty of room for discussion/rules-lawyering over whether a particular effect is covered by this particular feat/affinity.

Example:

Player: I use my lightning sword featto roast this cow in a second and cut it up so that it lands in nice little steaks for all the people on the table, what do I have to roll?

Narrator: No, you can't do that.

Player: But, my close combat skill is X and I was raised on a farm so I know
how to butcher cattle and I've been living in the wilderness and cooking etc.etc. etc.

Narrator: No.

Player: Why?

Narrator: Blah blah about why they don't see it as an appropriate use of the feat/affinity, Hedkoranth not being renowned for his cooking skills.

Player: But, etc. etc.

>
> And you talk about what feats actually mean as if they have a true
> interpretation. They don't. This is where the learning curve is eased. A
> fest does what you and your freinds agree that it does. Thats it, nothing
> more.
>

There is the nub, "you and your friends agree that it does", there is ample
room for rules-lawyering in this statement alone.

Not to say that this is necessarily a problem, but it could quite easily become a problem for a group. I think what is definitely needed is more myth for us to base these decisions on, so I hope that Thunder Rebels, She Guards Us etc are liberally sprinkled with myth and story.

Martin

Powered by hypermail