Help on not being a "rules lawyer"

[Daemonhawk]

Hey, I was wondering if i could get some help on how to act in situations that go against RAW. I tend to be a "rules lawyer" about it(No, this is the rules. Why do I have to do this?) It tends to slow down the play, and i just don't want to slow it down even more.

[Flickerdart]

Find a DM that knows the rules better. Or better yet, run your own game.

[ericgrau]

Correct only rules that make a huge difference in the outcome of the game, otherwise go with whatever the DM says wrong or right. Even when you do correct, remember the DM has the final say if he disagrees so things can move on. i.e., bring up the rules only when the benefit is greater than the detriment of the slowdown and discussion.

[Vladislav]

Inspired by this (http://www.xkcd.com/1057/): tell one of the other players in your group that whenever you're initiating a rules argument, they should punch you in the face without warning.

[bluthunda]

The way I see it is if the change or incorrect ruling makes the story good and doesn't ruin anybody's fun then why not dnd is about having fun and telling a story not being a better book reader/dice roller

[Thomasinx]

Hey, I was wondering if i could get some help on how to act in situations that go against RAW. I tend to be a "rules lawyer" about it(No, this is the rules. Why do I have to do this?) It tends to slow down the play, and i just don't want to slow it down even more.

Just don't say anything when such a situation pops up, and pretend you don't know that the rules say otherwise. Assume everything is houseruled, and don't argue with the DM.

Also, if you plan on doing something that might be nebulous to the DM, ask the DM what the rules are. (ie: "If I'm prone, what's the penalty to my attack if I decide not to stand up?") Dont ask what his interpetation of the rules are, just ask what the rules are. If what he says is different from your interpretation of the SRD, thats fine. Don't argue with him unless you really think it's worth it.

Unless there is a real problem with abuse of incorrect rules, most games go smoother if you just ignore small rule-fudging that the DM ignores. It's the DM's job to play cop, not yours. (If you're the DM, then enforcing the rules is perfectly fine.)

[ryu]

But what if the game is play by post? Have they invented a way to punch over the internet yet?

[Togo]

Hey, I was wondering if i could get some help on how to act in situations that go against RAW. I tend to be a "rules lawyer" about it(No, this is the rules. Why do I have to do this?) It tends to slow down the play, and i just don't want to slow it down even more.

Don't raise the point until the end of the session. That way, your concern gets addressed, but you don't interupt play.

[Fenryr]

Wait until the end of the game to say what's wrong and what's correct. It's better than interrupting the game pace.

Edit: SWORDSAGED.

[KillianHawkeye]

Don't raise the point until the end of the session. That way, your concern gets addressed, but you don't interupt play.

If necessary, write a note to yourself so you won't forget.

[ryu]

Also if following all rules is compulsive habit just make a rule for yourself that rules lawyering is against the rules. Bam!

[Downysole]

I know the rules very well, and I played in a game with a DM who didn't. We discussed a couple of bad rules situations that came up outside the game and eventually, he would look at me to verify rulings as they came up in game.

Maybe you just have to be sensitive about talking to him during the game.

[killianh]

If the DM says its how it goes then go with it. The DM's say is final in his own games so you'll need to go over it with him. If a player brings it up the feel free to bring the issue up. If the DM has no real clue about the rules then bring it up sparingly if it actually causes play issues.

Simply fix

[Hand_of_Vecna]

If you're sensitive to the fact that your rules lawyering can have negative connotations and don't bring up rules that go against common sense then it shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, rule 0, rule 1 blah blah blah, but if someone says their running 3rd ed D&D it should mean that generally the actual rules will be followed outside of specifically laid out houserules especially if it involves a PC being able to do something they were designed to do and can do under the rules.

The only time you should let things go is if, it really doesn't matter and nobody is getting hurt; double if pointing out a rule snafu will screw a player who doesn't know the rules as well. Even then it's still best to point these things out after the game so that even if a character gets grandfathered into a misruling for one game the whole group doesn't think a bad ruling is right forever. I've seen this happen myself; I let something happen once and chocked it up to rule of cool soon it became the character's shtick and she took a PrC to be better at it. Honestly this was ok, all in good fun. Then in the next campaign an entire character was optimized around this trick that was just supposed to happen once, but I couldn't very well stand with the rules now after allowing something for an entire campaign.

In short, don't be a ****, but point out rules issues. If you follow that rule then anyone who has a problem with you the problem is most likely them and they need to either learn the rules better or chill out.

[Eldan]

Table rules.

As long as the situation is not absolutely vital, make a quick remark, then discuss it with the DM after the game.

[Fyermind]

If the DM allows books at the table, only bring up rules you have open before they are resolved. Never dive for a book after the DM makes a ruling. Do not correct the DM, say something like "I believe this is the rule on [situation X]" while handing him the book open to the relevant page when the situation arises, before a ruling is made if possible.

This means you will be opening books to relevant pages before they come up, and if you don't anticipate it, deal with it. For example:

Lidda the rogue goes to snipe a goblin. Her player opens the player's handbook to the sniping entry of the hide skill, passes the book to the DM and says, "I snipe the goblin."

Later on, the DM has a goblin ambush the party, the DM rolls the goblin's hide check fairly low, and Lidda gets a total over 30. Though the player guesses the DM didn't take a -20 penalty on the hide check, when the DM says she can't see the goblin to target it, Lidda deals, because she didn't have the book out and the ruling was already made.

[Gavinfoxx]

"Hey guys, I'm just going to be writing down all the things where we break the rules, and placing this cup upside down as a signal that I noticed something, so the DM can decide or not to ask me. Otherwise, I'll hand the correct rules it to the DM at any major pause in the game, most likely at the end of the game."

[Venger]

Don't raise the point until the end of the session. That way, your concern gets addressed, but you don't interupt play.
this is a great tip. most sessions last a while and there are usually breaks throughout to get food or stretch or what have you, and these breaks can be helpful to ask the DM questions or offer assistance

the main thing is the connotation. nobody minds a player who knows the rules to the game, what makes people unhappy is when they use it as a weapon to put people down or try to one-up them or take over for the DM, which doesn't seem to be the case. nobody likes being told "no, you're wrong, it actually works like this". you can still bring things up, and I find that it often helps to phrase it in the form of a question. (hey, do you have a houserule about negative levels? I haven't seen them work like that before; do you want me to pull up the grappling rules on the SRD? I know they're hard to remember, etc.) rather than telling the DM what he's doing wrong.

[Psyren]

If you know the answer, but are humble and kind about it, people (even the DM) will often start asking you what to do or how a situation should play out on a regular basis. Often the term "rules lawyer" means more than simply knowing the rules - it carries connotations of a know-it-all who gleefully rubs everyone else's ignorance in the dirt at their feet.

I strive to be more of a "rules guru" instead. My groups ask me what to do because they know they'll come away more knowledgeable as a result, without being made to feel stupid. And part of it means (as others have said) only chiming in during a session if the information is vital or I'm specifically asked - otherwise, it's better to table your suggestions until a natural break in gameplay.

This is the best of both worlds - you get to scratch your itch of solving problems/being helpful, and the group gets to see you as a trusted authority/guide rather than anal-retentive and bossy. What you say and how you say it are two inseparable sides of the same coin.

[Little Brother]

Do what I do, as the local rules-fu black belt. Whenever something incorrect happens, I merely point out what it should be. Either the DM asks me to explain, accepts it, or sticks with what they said, knowing it's against the rules next time it comes up. Either way, the problem is resolved.

[Binks]

Psyren hit the nail on the head here. Talk to the GM. Tell them that you appreciate their work on the game but that their rules knowledge seems to be a bit lacking. Ask them if they would like some help with the rules when questions come up and offer your services.

Any good GM worth their salt will appreciate the help. Worse case scenario, they say no, and you're right back where you started (and can use the other advice from this thread to deal with the issue). Best case scenario, they say yes and you're helping keep the game follow the rules without annoying anyone.

[danzibr]

Inspired by this (http://www.xkcd.com/1057/): tell one of the other players in your group that whenever you're initiating a rules argument, they should punch you in the face without warning.
Ahh... hilarious. That'd learn ya real good.

Don't raise the point until the end of the session. That way, your concern gets addressed, but you don't interupt play.

Wait until the end of the game to say what's wrong and what's correct. It's better than interrupting the game pace.

Edit: SWORDSAGED.
Yeah I agree with these. Hopefully the DM will learn the rules as you go and the problem just goes away.

[Salanmander]

Also, if you plan on doing something that might be nebulous to the DM, ask the DM what the rules are. (ie: "If I'm prone, what's the penalty to my attack if I decide not to stand up?") Dont ask what his interpetation of the rules are, just ask what the rules are. If what he says is different from your interpretation of the SRD, thats fine. Don't argue with him unless you really think it's worth it.



The problem with this, similar to what Hand of Vecna pointed out, is that's _not_ nebulous


Prone
The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow).

Players should generally be able to assume the rules will be as written unless otherwise specified. For example, if my character doesn't care about attack bonus because he always makes touch attacks, I might not worry about getting a way to stand up without provoking.

Suppose, 2 sessions into the game, I end up prone and make an attack. The DM says "...really? That's nearly impossible, so you take a -20 to attack." That would be pointless even for my touch attack character!

Should I point out that there's a rule for that, and it's different? If I'd known the DM's ruling, I might have made different decisions in my character creation.

Because of this I think it's important for any house rules to be made clear up front. If the DM needs to make snap decisions, and nobody knows the actual rule (or even if there is one), great. Look it up after the game. But if the DM needs to make a snap decision and it turns out that you know the actual rule, I think it's a good idea to point it out. Of course, as others have pointed out, it's best to be non-confrontational about it. My favored wording is "Are you aware that there's a standard rule for that?"

[LadyLexi]

I tend to have some problems with this too, especially if an outcome of my actions differs significantly from what the rules would say. I.e. I end up making a diplomacy high enough to move the NPC to helpful, they tell me to piss off because I don't belong around the area. Or I end up with a 35 Gather Information that comes up with nothing and then the barbarian asks the bartender and gets the answer.

I think the best thing to do in situations like that is just move on or make note of DM's that have particular quirks so you don't end up unhappy with future characters.

[Vladislav]

Another thing to remember about rules lawyering is: charity starts at home. Too often, unfortunately, I get to see players second-guessing every DM decision, and exhibiting intricate knowledge of various rules nuances, while they themselves do things that are so blatantly illegal that it's hard to believe it can be accidental. Basic things like forgetting to apply -4 for firing into melee. And it comes from the same player who two minutes ago showed subtle knowledge of a nuanced text from Lords of Madness or Frostburn...

[doko239]

Simple rules I live by:

1. RAI trumps RAW. If the rules state something absurd, but the actual intent is obvious, then go with the common sense interpretation.

2. Rule of thumb at my tables is, if you disagree with a ruling, you have 5 minutes to find and produce the relevant rule in an official published document, or forever hold your peace. In the meantime, play will continue as normal.

3. DM Fiat trumps all. NEVER argue with the DM, even if you're right. It ends up poisoning the game.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I had a GM that hated rules lawyers... Especially ones that interrupted game. Our gaming group almost fell apart on several occasions. Finally one of the other players said when ever I felt the urge to argue a rule. I would voice a quick objection and write it down. Then after game we would talk about it...

In another group the GM had a 1 minute to state our case. (any other person could "step up for a minute" to argue/debate/counterpoint/etc). Then he would make a judgement for that session and then after game we could argue it... then generally some one would write it down in our big book of House rules.

[Slipperychicken]

I play in a "3.P" game which is basically run as freeform, with the sole exceptions to this being armor class, hit points, damage, and saving throws. Nearly every other ability seems to be resolved (not officially, but this seems to be the process) as such:

1. You declare the name of ability you want your PC to use.

2. GM imagines what that name means in his head. (If he doesn't know what the word means, default to RAW)

3. GM resolves the strongest possible interpretation of what an ability of that name could possibly do (i.e. Acid Splash putting a 20ft diameter hole in a city wall, Fascinate inciting crowds to lethal barfights, etc.)

4. I call out that isn't how it works.

5. GM or another player responds "rule zero hahahaha" or "it's good for you, stop complaining"


It's annoying, and it seems like the best decision might be to either take up the mantle myself, or find another GM. That may be the best advice if it gets on your nerves.

[RagnaroksChosen]

3. GM resolves the strongest possible interpretation of what an ability of that name could possibly do (i.e. Acid Splash putting a 20ft diameter hole in a city wall, Fascinate inciting crowds to lethal barfights, etc.)

4. I call out that isn't how it works.

5. GM or another player responds "rule zero hahahaha" or "it's good for you, stop complaining"

It's annoying, and it seems like the best decision might be to either take up the mantle myself, or find another GM. That may be the best advice if it gets on your nerves.

I can't stand it when my player or when other players say rule zero or Rule of cool. Ya it could be cool but if it breaks suspension of disbelief then its not.. IMO... I know some people are into the whole god mode thing but... to me if you win all the time it is boring...

[Rejakor]

Blindly following RAW is bad, arguing about rules to be a ****/because you are a **** is bad, handwaving everything to 'what the DM thinks is cool' is bad.

Sure, some groups have fun using one of those methods exclusively, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Typically, I view it as this;

The DM has a responsibility to his players and to the versimilitude of the world to have consistent rules by which things are resolved. If those are house rules, it doesn't matter, as long as they make sense and are consistent. Not the best possible option, but one the players are happy with and keeps the world functioning in non-silly ways (which ruins suspension of disbelief). If a situation or action is ambiguous under the current rules, it is the DM's job, with or without player suggestions, to make a quick houserule that keeps the game going, and then to later look at the rules and find a way to handle it in future that is the best one you can think of.

The players have a responsibility to know the rules, to abide by the rules, to inform the DM about the rules and ask if there's a houserule they don't know about, to not be a **** and rules-lawyer for personal advantage or out of maliciousness, to ask the DM how something should be handled in the rules if they don't know, and to do their best to keep the game moving and not bogged down. If players think a rule decision is changing the game in ways they didn't expect, or seriously ****ing with their character concept, they certainly have the right to speak out and ask the game to be quickly paused while their issue is dealt with. If the players WANT a different rule decision, especially for ooc reasons like 'wanting to kill the monster' not ic reasons like 'well, now my character doesn't work at all', being a **** to get it is specifically not allowed and just being a **** in general - that's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with a player being a ****.


EDIT: Wow, i'd hate to be named 'Richard' on this forum, **** is censored.

[Salanmander]

@Rejakor: I generally agree with what you said, but as a pedant I must point out...


especially for ooc reasons like 'wanting to kill the monster'

...I'm pretty sure the characters want to kill the monster too. (Not saying it's a good reason for wanting a different ruling, just saying that it's an in-character motivation.)

[Tyndmyr]

Hey, I was wondering if i could get some help on how to act in situations that go against RAW. I tend to be a "rules lawyer" about it(No, this is the rules. Why do I have to do this?) It tends to slow down the play, and i just don't want to slow it down even more.

Now, now....wanting to play by the rules is not the same as being a rules lawyer.

A rules lawyer is one who is continually seeking to interpret the rules to his own advantage.

If you simply want to play by the rules, and take the good with the bad, you're not a rules lawyer at all. Just a player with preferences.

[Slipperychicken]

I can't stand it when my player or when other players say rule zero or Rule of cool. Ya it could be cool but if it breaks suspension of disbelief then its not.. IMO... I know some people are into the whole god mode thing but... to me if you win all the time it is boring...

Yeah, that's basically what my problem with gaming under him has been, and I agree totally with you about "god-mode". The GM just tramples the rules to let happen whatever he wants to happen, whether that's good or bad for the PCs. Victory isn't sweet if there's no chance of failure, and failure is meaningless if there was nothing to be done about it. When the GM just hands you things or makes s*** up, it just feels pointless.


That's what rules are for IMO; they facilitate impartial conflict resolution, and provide chances for failure and success. The rules should only be broken (or Rule Zero should only be invoked) when the game would be greatly improved by doing so, and when it doesn't feel cheap or like an asspull.