"That" Guy

[Traab]

You know the one. The guy who can do stuff like this (http://willsaveworldforgold.com/?p=300) in just about any scenario. He finds loopholes in loopholes, and can find a way to argue just about anything he wants to do should be allowed. Who finds that type of person amusing? Who hates their guts? Who agrees with the warforged? And most importantly, share with us the best story you can think of where you had to deal with a guy like this. What was he trying to pull, and did he do it?

[Drazik]

in a group i was in once that 'guy' was playing a diplomancer, and convinced the half-ogre fighter to help him sack towns and villages. about halfway through each pillaging, the 'guy' would do a mass diplomacy check to convince the remaining townsfolk to come with him and they would not be hurt.

over the course of a couple of days he was able to put together a force of just over 400.

he then sent them to start deforesting a nearby forest, using the initial wood to build a grand hall and houses fro them (so they wouldn't want to leave) and the remaining wood he sold to a nearby market city.

with the profits, he armed and armored his force.

[Anderlith]

I see nothing wrong with the bucket drum. The feat retraining is a stretch & is up to GM Fiat (how & when he retrained). Everything else is solid. It only looks bad because their is no fluff to how he did it.

I am usually this guy, no so much with exploiting loopholes (I find that in poor taste) but will liberal critical thinking you can do a lot. (like improvised bucket drums as a focus) & everything should have ample in game reasoning. Out of game mechanics are all well & good but a bed needs fluff or you sleep on a rough metal frame

[DaMullet]

I have been That Guy and sat next to That Guy; I find the use of That Guy's ...particular set of skills... can be invaluable in excising the bad parts of an overly-railroaded game. That said, if 4 out of 5 people are enjoying the game, chances are the fifth is the GM and it's That Guy's fault. If he knows he's That Guy and can curb it when it goes too far, then it's a spectacular force for good in the right hands.

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, if we're talking 4e as the comic strip seems to be, then yeah, he's specifically allowed to retrain a feat at levelling up, no more GM intervention or agreement needed than for any other part of levelling up really. And, uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure the bardic ritual casting multiclass thing does infact give you free rituals. Which is to say, is it really a loophole if you're following what the rules actually say?

That said, I think I get what the OP is asking about regardless. There are different types of loopholes, though, and different reasons and methods of taking advantage of them. Seeking to understand exactly how the rules work and interact is a good thing. Trying to use quirks of grammer or obvious rules oversights to your advantage is not such a good thing.

[Grinner]

I'm usually fine with 'That' Guy, so long as he can justify his character as anything other than a rambling lunatic. However, it seems like certain games almost necessitate ludicrous optimization just to keep pace with the core mechanics. (i.e. 4e)

[bloodtide]

I run into 'that guy', all the time. I play lots of games with strangers.

I generally dislike 'that guy', but don't make such a big deal about it. They are free to try anything they like in the game, but there is no rule that says it will work. I keep a very firm control of the game, old school style, so 'that guy' is no problem.

[Ashjustash]

I love "That Guy". I have one who I'd like to keep in my pocket for all my brain storming sessions and I've gotten him well trained over the years.

"That Guy" is excellent for keeping the session, the story, the campaign from becoming railroaded because he will without a doubt throw a wrench into the works and tbh I love the heck out of that.

You just have to train him because while technically the rules/books, say that he can do that? Doesn't means its entirely plausible for HIS character to be able to do that because of his characters nature, alignment, personality, ect. You give "That Guy" the go ahead to be able to do it, but you want a good story in justifying it as a result.

"That Guy" in my games tends to have the most well-developed, well-thought out, and most immersive character in the game and he tends to provide the most fodder for on-the-fly plots and plot hooks (making my job easier :D ).

He can be a pain, because in the middle of session you have to stop and pause in order to debate about what his character can and cannot do, break out books, research, verify, or just throw your hands up and give it to him and maybe have the entire night stalled because he brought out something you hadn't planned for.

The best way to handle "That Guy" is to ensure that he's justified his character having the ability/knowledge/concept/trait/talent/whatever-it-is-he-is-pulling in the characters back story.

From that foundation you can research the character yourself a head of time before the game starts, see precisely what it is his, everyone's, characters can do/know/imagine both by the "rules" and by the "story" as the characters have been planned.

Another tip is to expressly state which books your campaign is going to be working from, and that if your players wants to use something from a book not listed? They need to talk to you first about it. That way? They're tipping their hand on their sneakiness, and go a head and give it to them. Whatever it is which they're wanting to use from another book? Give it to them (unless its something obviously impossible) this allows your group to feel free to be creative and that your going to support their characters creativity and their fun, while making sure no one is being *****...This keeps "That Guy" from pulling a sneaky from a book which you've never even heard of, and at least if he wants the option to pull it? He's already told you before hand that he's got it and you can "one-shot-proof" the sessions against that sneakiness.

You're the GM, you set the theme, rules, story, and plot of the group. Part of that is keeping disruptions to the minimal without ruining everyones fun, and "That Guy" can be a lot of fun as long as your GM isn't letting him run roughshod on everything. I've found that most people hate "That Guy" because the GM can't really cope with his pressence, and that influences the entire groups mentality on that session.

[eulmanis12]

That Guy actualy has 2 sub catagories

THAT Guy: the Rules lawyer who abuses loopholes and munchkins around all session
Ardon was this


That Guy: the Engineer (possibly literaly an engineer in real life) who is constantly coming up with clever, logical, out of the box solutions

This one is a good thing