"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."
-- Wikipedia
I don't have any particular issue with a rules lawyer at my game table, foremost because I'm as conscious of the rules as said lawyer and secondly because I impose a condition of the law that I can't help noticing most DMs fail to recognize. When a lawyer brings a case to court to argue it, before any argument can be made the judge has to first decide on the merits of the case before it will be considered. If you recognize that as the DM, you are the judge, you'll realize that you don't have to listen to any case that lacks merit. By definition, "merits" are defences that rest upon the justice of the case, and not upon technical grounds only. That simple distinction obliterates at least 9/10ths of the arguments made by game rules lawyers ~ and if you outline that distinction, clearly, you can end nonsense cases put before you of this kind.
The way to break a rules lawyer is to use the law.
The wikipedia page also makes reference to a "sea lawyer," which I think is worth adding to the discussion. According to the Glossary of U.S. Navy slang, a sea lawyer is,
"(1) A sailor or his buddy, making eloquent but completely spurious arguments at Captain's Mast, or in response to some disciplinary action. (2) An argumentative, cantankerous or know-it-all sailor. A sea lawyer is adept at using technicalities, half truths, and administrative crap to get out of doing work or anything else he doesn't want to do, and/or to justify his laziness."
This is precisely the problem with such people in game play. It isn't that they debate or discuss the rules, which is perfectly sound and reasonable (after all, it is why we have lawyers). It is that they are miserable, lazy persons lacking immersion in the game, which causes them to wreck campaigns while glomming attention and screwing up the works.
Not that I think anyone here needs me to define the D&D process, but let's do it anyway for argument's sake. My role is to provide information about the setting, which includes detailing characters in that setting and things that happen surrounding the players. When the players ask me a question, desirably, it should be about the setting, and not the rules.
It's understandable at the outset that we will need to discuss the rules to some degree, to settle on how the rules work. For the most part, this should be one rule = one discussion. That discussion will usually be 20 or 30 seconds, or less, unless it is a tricky rule. Unless something truly goofy happens during the game, we shouldn't have to discuss that rule again (though, we will, because people can't remember things).
Rule discussions in game should be limited to clarification, Not supposition. Any argument that begins with a metaphorical or simulationist perspective, such as, "I can swing a shield like a sword and I can prove it to you," has zero merit as an argument, not because it isn't true, but because we cannot measure the practicality of that thing with real experimentation against real orcs who are really trying to kill the player, who is not the fighter represented on the game's sheet of paper. And so, therefore, the entire argument lacks evidence. Arguments like this, that derive from a metagaming perspective, should never be heard by the DM. According to the rules, the player's character has never been trained with a shield; it would never occur to the character to suppose he or she could use a shield as a weapon; therefore, the supposition is null and void. Therefore, there is no merit to the player's argument and it will not be heard during game play.
Once you get this into your head as a DM, you'll be able to cut player's off mid-sentence without hesitation, like a Judge cutting off a lawyer stepping outside the law. Once you get into the habit, the players will stop advancing metagaming arguments, the rules will come to stand as pre-determined and the players will stop talking to the DM when they get information about the setting, and will start talking to each other.
Flaw #4 reads, "Encouraging game metrics that rely too much on DM-Player negotiation, consuming the DM's precious time while hampering Player-Player communication."
Not only is this a dictate for the players to follow, but it is also a dictate for the DM. If you find yourself starting to lose your voice by the end of a five-hour session, it is because you're talking too much. Talk less. Get your descriptions and important points out and then shut the hell up. Stop embellishing beyond the bare minimum. The game isn't about you. The game is about what you inspire in others. Let them be inspired and then back off. Manage their requests, manage their rolls and decisions, manage the non-player characters and shut down player attempts to reach across the table and utilize your presence as a help-meet for their actions.
Because if you're soft and forgiving; if you're sympathetic and indulgent; they will smell it on you and wheedle every damn thing that comes into their imaginations out of your big, fat beneficence. Your players aren't stupid. If you give out that you can be played, they will play you. They will tell you long sob-stories and butter you up; they'll argue mundane issues because you've already demonstrated a habit for being gotten around; they'll coax you and tempt you and twist your emotional arm. Every character death will feature threats of game-quitting and suicide if that's what it will take to melt your big ol' fuzzy heart. No treasure horde will ever be large enough; no magical weapon will ever have enough power; and no rule in your game will be fixed and inviolate, ever.
Every game will be a steady, unending discussion between you and the individual players, as they will never need to talk to each other. Why would they? They can get a lot more out of you! What, in the name of the game, could another player offer that won't be bigger and better coming from the DM?
No comments:
Post a Comment