From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Rule Lawyering (WAS: Star Trek III Combat Simulator)
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:01:17 GMT
Organization: BYU

In article <1992Oct1.214249.7707@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@dosequis.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>Subject: Rule Lawyering (WAS: Star Trek III Combat Simulator)
>
>> Games should have consistant rules that cover the scope of the game.
>>Frequently, all the rules cannot cover every situation.  In fact, I
>>can't think of a game that covers *every* possible situation.  That's
>>somewhat impossible, I would think.
>
>I'm not sure about that, but since in practice, many rule sets _do_ have
>loopholes, the theoretical question becomes a tad academic (Which, I guess,
>is why I had to make this comment. :)
>
>>What seperates rules lawyers
>>at this point is that they don't care about what is being simulated
>>but instead, if there is a problem, they go over the rules
>>like lawyers (hence the name) to find out exactly what the rules do and
>>don't say.
>
>This is bad only if the question of `what is being simulated here?'
>unambiguously settles the problem and doesn't create further problems down the
>line.  In the specific case of Star Trek based games, you start out with the
>fact that the source material is inconsistent (How nuch damage does a photon
>do?)
>
>The rules will often present you with less ambiguity than the source material.
>You may have a loophole that isn't covered by the source at all.
>
>>Interpolating from other rules, argueing for hours, and
>>never bothering to think about it in a way that would make sense in the
>>simualtion.  What isn't stated in the rules often becomes much more
>>important than what is  ("It doesn't say I can't , so therefore I can...")
>
>This is unambiguously BAD.  Nobody has tried to defend this practice.
>
In the groups that I play with there is a law of five minutes to prove your 
point with a five minute rebutle by someone else with some kind of consensus 
at the end. If it is not resolved the person who brings it up buys a round 
of McD's for everyone, so excessive lawyering has been done away with.

>>The two games I have seen that happen in the most is Star Fleet
>>and Champions.
>
>I have never played Champions (the superhero genre doesn't appeal to me), but
>in SFB, I've had the sort of problem you describe exactly once (and a year
>later the guy was still embarrassed about it.)  I'm not saying this sort of
>thing doesn't happen (There's a bunch of logically unnecessary rules in SFB
>that seem to be there for the sole purpose of forestalling just this sort of
>abuse.  Presumably ADB wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't been a problem.)
>But nobody says you have to play with the assholes.  There are non-abusive SFB
>players; in my experience they're a majority.
>

Last night I read on GEnie that Steve Cole (SFB designer) had a game with a 
couple of lawyers, he was very grumpy afterwards. Most of the "unnecessary" 
rules are there because of the abuses of the lawyers. He goes out and plays 
with groups on occasion and so learn about these things and they are trying 
to plug all the loopholes they or anyone can find. 
I also think that all these rules are adding unnecessary mass to the 
rulebook but if you find a nice group to play with it is a really fun game.

We have this one guy who would do anything to win but wouldn't research his 
rules as well as he should have. But it wasn't worth digging through all the 
addenda to prove him wrong. But with the new rules he is easily controlled, 
so the new rulebook is great. 

Any time I play and I play against someone obsessed with winning usually 
not a good game, but I do enjoy trying to play to a draw or stalemate which 
annoys them alot. >:->.
Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Organization: Doctoral student, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA