PDA

View Full Version : What exactly is "rules lawyering"?



Talakeal
2016-09-08, 04:10 PM
So the other night I had another one of Talakeal's adventures gaming in Bizarro land:

We were playing Werewolf:
DM "Do you want to do per turn initiative or per scene initiative?"
Me: "I am not sure what the difference is, let me look it up," I did so, and then said "Did you notice the "pack initiative" optional rule on page XX? It looks really neat, you might want to look into it."
DM: "Talakeal, I really don't appreciate rules lawyers at my table, and I am in no mood to put up with it tonight."
Me: "Rules lawyer? How am I rules lawyering?"
DM: "Anytime a player opens a book at the table OR quotes a rule to the game master, they are a rules lawyer as far as I concerned, and I am not going to put up with it,"
Me: "But you asked me a direct question, and I needed to look up the specifics rule before I could form an opinion to give you an answer."
DM: "Doesn't matter. I asked you a question, and if you were unsure you should have asked me for a clarification rather than going to the book. Furthermore, I asked you to choose between A and B, and you brought up C, that is unacceptable behavior in my house."
Me: "I am sorry for derailing your game. Please continue."

So I tried to tell this story to a non-gaming friend of mine, and they asked what a "rules lawyer" was, and I found I was unable to come up with a definition or even an adequate explanation .

I have heard the term used to describe:
A player you argues endlessly with the DM.
A player who twists the rules for an advantage.
A player who ignores the spirit of the rules in favor of the letter (or vice versa)
A player who insists everyone follow the rules to the exact letter.
A player who questions the DM at all
And now "a player who looks at a book during the game or reads something out of the book to the DM"

I am wondering though, is there a commonly accepted definition? Or is it just a generic term that is used to describe a broad spectrum of player behaviors?

Geddy2112
2016-09-08, 04:20 PM
When I think of a rules lawyer, I think of somebody who is trying to game the system to their advantage. Normally it involves a dogmatic following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit. That said, following the rules, enforcing rules, and going by the conventions of the game is in no way rules lawyering. Rules lawyers exploit places where the rules are murky or unclear, often with the intent of breaking the game and gaining an advantage.

I think it becomes rules lawyering when a rule disagreement stops the game, and the rules lawyer is the one that points to the book and says"this has to be done this way, it says so".

VoxRationis
2016-09-08, 04:22 PM
Your DM has a... rather strict definition. I'd define it as "using the letter of the rules for undue advantage by ignoring implicit contexts, purposes, addenda, or limitations (i.e., the spirit) of said rules."

For example, in D&D 3.5, a material component pouch contains an indefinite amount of all material components that don't have a listed gp cost. This is for the purpose of reducing bookkeeping for wizards and saving everyone the trouble of figuring out how much small pieces of gum arabic cost. However, a rules lawyer might try to:

Feed his character indefinitely for free with tiny tarts (the component for hideous laughter);
Pay for anything and everything with infinite copper pieces (also a material component);
Swarm foes with infinite live spiders (the material component for spider climb)

This is obviously rules lawyering (if not perhaps the most well-optimized rules lawyering). The component pouch isn't supposed to be an extradimensional portal to a custom-order bakery or the collected penny jars of all the grandmothers in the land.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-09-08, 04:25 PM
Well, it's certainly not "knowing the rules," I can tell you that much.

I don't know that there's a standard definition, but the key features are probably "argues with the DM," "holds up the game," and "advocates rules over common sense." The key is I think the negative association-- knowing rules isn't being a rules lawyer, but arguing about them is. It's not about exploiting so much as obnoxiously enforcing them.

golentan
2016-09-08, 04:28 PM
I'd also add players trying to invalidate a plot point by arguing it doesn't fit with the rules.

Ever watch the George of the Jungle movie that came out in the 90s? When someone in my group starts looking like they're rules lawyering, the joke callout that things are moving towards rules lawyering is "Are you arguing with the narrator?"

TheIronGolem
2016-09-08, 04:31 PM
Well, it's certainly not "knowing the rules," I can tell you that much.

It's more like "knowing more about the rules than I do".

DireSickFish
2016-09-08, 04:34 PM
To me Rules Lawyering is whenever you are correcting the way someone else is doing things. This correction makes them adhere to the rules as written.

If the GM points to a player and says they get to attack first in DnD (and no one has rolled initiative), rules lawyering would be bringing up the initiative rules to determine turn order.

It often carries a negative connotation because it can be used to derail a game. Sometimes it doesn't matter if a rule is being followed perfectly in a game. It can also frustrate a GM because they feel they are playing the game wrong and lose control over the session. It can be very hard to run a game when you lack authority.


The best Rules Lawyers never have to look at a book, they know them all by memory. So your GMs interpretation doesn't really match up with mine.

When playing in a new system Rules Lawyering is inevitable and part of the growing pains. When the GM is running a mystery with veteran players and things don't add up because those are clues to the real answer. Then a Rules Lawyer can cause the whole adventure to spin out and they should trust that the GM knows what they are doing.

Talakeal
2016-09-08, 04:37 PM
I'd also add players trying to invalidate a plot point by arguing it doesn't fit with the rules.

Ever watch the George of the Jungle movie that came out in the 90s? When someone in my group starts looking like they're rules lawyering, the joke callout that things are moving towards rules lawyering is "Are you arguing with the narrator?"

This is the type of thing that really gets my goat. When a player insists on nullifying a plot point because I made a mistake in the enemies build or the terrain layout of the encounter or had something that is possible in irl but not in the RAW (like an experienced warrior dying by falling off a roof).

Keltest
2016-09-08, 04:40 PM
Personally, I define the act of rules-lawyering as a player trying to push a specific interpretation of a rule or combination of rules, for any reason. That interpretation must be based on the actual text of the rules. The goal of the rules-laywer should be to get a specific ruling made.

Segev
2016-09-08, 04:59 PM
Rules Lawyering is, specifically, trying to use strictly logical applications of the rules to get particular outcomes. Generally, it only comes up if these strictly logical applications lead to results which might be counter-intuitive in the greater context of the game-as-simulation, or would result in seemingly undue advantage for the investment of character resources required to exploit the rules being invoked. It is often broadly used synonymously with "munchkin," colored by the version of a munchkin who tries to abuse rules loopholes (as opposed to the kind of munchkin that just out-and-out cheats).

What you did doesn't qualify as rules lawyering. There is no exploitation of rules' wording or interactions for your advantage, at least not at the stage discussed.

For a broader brush, in simpler terms, "rules lawyering" is arguing from the rules-as-written to get something even if it seems nonsensical. It usually includes an attempt to leverage the GM into letting you do, have, or succeed at something he otherwise wouldn't.

It isn't always wrong, either; pointing out that the GM is violating the RAW and it's detrimentally affecting your character is rules lawyering. It only becomes a problem when you allow it to disrupt the game and try to abuse things. (My general rule regarding combinations and interactions of rules that I, as a GM, find problematic is to allow the player to rebuild to avoid that problem, on the grounds that I won't make him suffer a weaker character as I remove that interaction.)

Draconium
2016-09-08, 05:21 PM
Okay, I see what the others have said about rules lawyers so far, and I'm here to chime in my two cents - that, despite all the negative connotations, being a rules lawyer isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Now, when most people talk about it, they usually mean someone trying to game the Rules As Written to gain an advantage, often causing the game to come to a halt in the process, due to their unwillingness to concede. This is usually a bad thing, as few people like to play with such a person.

Then there are those people who want to help the game run smoother. They will help clarify how Feat X or Class Feature Y works, give tips to their party members on how to optimize, or even help the GM figure out how things such as poison and disease work - though hopefully not at the expense of the party. They still know the rules and how they work, and they may still try to gain advantages where they can. But in the end, all they want to do is have fun with everyone. In fact, they can actually be a boon to a table of newcomers, as they can help everyone else understand the game.

Though, yeah, that is unfortunately not as common. People tend to have bad experiences with rules lawyers, and will often shut them down. Often a good thing, but frustrating if you aren't actually trying to game the system.

Also, as the OP described, that sounded poorly handled by the GM.

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 05:51 PM
It's a nebulous term. As I see it, there's really something like three kinds:

A) The helper. This person knows the rules really well (or at least how to look them up and interpret them quickly) and helps the DM or the party resolve questions and follow the rules (or understand the rules well enough to make an informed break away from them), and is typically willing to do so when it's to their own disadvantage too. This variant will probably engage in some discussion/argument with the table, generally not as much as other varieties, but the primary goal is fairness (for the whole table) rather than personal gain, and they're typically willing to accept (fair and/or reasonable) house rules/rulings. The helper doesn't want to be disruptive, but they may end up being disruptive if they think something's unfair or unreasonable, or may slow the game to a crawl by trying to look up and explain every bit of rules minutia that anyone asks about.
EDIT: Draconium beat me to it with a very good explanation of this type. Check their post above.

B) The jerk. This is the person who tries to use the rules for personal gain, or uses the rules to shaft another player, or uses the rules to annoy the DM, or uses the rules for other shenanigans not otherwise covered. They usually really don't care if anyone else has a good time.
EDIT: As Mordar pointed out in the post below, this type generally doesn't care if the DM gets a rule wrong or misses something, as long as it's in their favor. They may also conveniently ignore errata or other rules that contradict the shenanigans they're trying to pull.

C) The other jerk. This person insists on everyone FOLLOWING THE RULES!!! and throws a hissy fit over house-rules even when they're fair/reasonable. Usually takes the game waaaaay too seriously, and is generally unconcerned with anybody else's fun. Often overlaps with B, but is still in a separate category because they might not be trying for shenanigans or personal gain and just be obsessive about adhering to the rules.

Mordar
2016-09-08, 06:08 PM
It's a nebulous term. As I see it, there's really something like three kinds:

B) The jerk. This is the person who tries to use the rules for personal gain, or uses the rules to shaft another player, or uses the rules to annoy the DM, or uses the rules for other shenanigans not otherwise covered. They usually really don't care if anyone else has a good time.



I liked your three variants, but would like to add a caveat to (B)...not sure how to word it to fit, but it is the concept of inconsistent application of the rules (or at least inconsistent employment of known rules). When cleaving to the RAW doesn't benefit The Rules Jerk and the GM has not properly applied RAW, The Rules Jerk will not quote the rule that would alter the current outcome in a way that either hurts The Rules Jerk or decreases the benefit currently accruing to The Rules Jerk. The Rules Jerk will simply allow the decision to pass unaltered.

- M

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 06:20 PM
I liked your three variants, but would like to add a caveat to (B)...not sure how to word it to fit, but it is the concept of inconsistent application of the rules (or at least inconsistent employment of known rules). When cleaving to the RAW doesn't benefit The Rules Jerk and the GM has not properly applied RAW, The Rules Jerk will not quote the rule that would alter the current outcome in a way that either hurts The Rules Jerk or decreases the benefit currently accruing to The Rules Jerk. The Rules Jerk will simply allow the decision to pass unaltered.

- M

Good point, and agreed--it's very common with that type to let it slide as long as it helps them, and only argue the rules when they can use it to their advantage or someone else's disadvantage. I'll edit something on that effect into my post. Thanks!

Segev
2016-09-08, 06:21 PM
I liked your three variants, but would like to add a caveat to (B)...not sure how to word it to fit, but it is the concept of inconsistent application of the rules (or at least inconsistent employment of known rules). When cleaving to the RAW doesn't benefit The Rules Jerk and the GM has not properly applied RAW, The Rules Jerk will not quote the rule that would alter the current outcome in a way that either hurts The Rules Jerk or decreases the benefit currently accruing to The Rules Jerk. The Rules Jerk will simply allow the decision to pass unaltered.

- M

This is one of the munchkin variants, yeah. Bends and twists the rules to get what he wants, may bend and twist them the other way later...and will conveniently forget them if nobody brings them up when the violation of them goes his way.

In a sense, it's a milder version of the "cheater" variety.






I consider myself a rules lawyer, for the record. Those who've argued with me on these forums about specific rule interactions probably already thought so. ^^;

But at a table, I'm only going to bring up the rules as I understand them to try to wrap my head around it. If the GM wants to go some other way, I'll try to table any disagreements I have until later, when I can discuss it with him and try to find out how HE is going to run it. I will, between game sessions, also try to analyze any changes made for repercussions, and discuss consequences and ask how he'll rule on those.

Because my rules lawyering is largely an effort to make sure I know what my options are.

While I like the game, I'm in one with a GM who house-rules a LOT of stuff, and doesn't really explain it ahead of time. So that spells often do more or less than what's listed, and in ways that give them strange applications I wouldn't have thought of because the effect the GM ascribes to them isn't anywhere in the spell's description, even by implication.

This has only really frustrated me in two conditions: 1) when something I thought I could do is greeted with a disapproving "no," and I had been relying a strategy on it (and so now my PC looks like a moron AND is in trouble because he should have known how stupid it was to try what he tried without the abilities I thought he had working as I thought); and 2) when I get treated like I'm not living up to my PC's potential...and it turns out that it's because I didn't use powers and abilities the GM thought I had because they aren't what the rules say I could do.

TheIronGolem
2016-09-08, 06:24 PM
It's a nebulous term. As I see it, there's really something like three kinds:

A) The helper. This person knows the rules really well (or at least how to look them up and interpret them quickly) and helps the DM or the party resolve questions and follow the rules (or understand the rules well enough to make an informed break away from them), and is typically willing to do so when it's to their own disadvantage too. This variant will probably engage in some discussion/argument with the table, generally not as much as other varieties, but the primary goal is fairness (for the whole table) rather than personal gain, and they're typically willing to accept (fair and/or reasonable) house rules/rulings. The helper doesn't want to be disruptive, but they may end up being disruptive if they think something's unfair or unreasonable, or may slow the game to a crawl by trying to look up and explain every bit of rules minutia that anyone asks about.
EDIT: Draconium beat me to it with a very good explanation of this type. Check their post above.

B) The jerk. This is the person who tries to use the rules for personal gain, or uses the rules to shaft another player, or uses the rules to annoy the DM, or uses the rules for other shenanigans not otherwise covered. They usually really don't care if anyone else has a good time.
EDIT: As Mordar pointed out in the post below, this type generally doesn't care if the DM gets a rule wrong or misses something, as long as it's in their favor. They may also conveniently ignore errata or other rules that contradict the shenanigans they're trying to pull.

C) The other jerk. This person insists on everyone FOLLOWING THE RULES!!! and throws a hissy fit over house-rules even when they're fair/reasonable. Usually takes the game waaaaay too seriously, and is generally unconcerned with anybody else's fun. Often overlaps with B, but is still in a separate category because they might not be trying for shenanigans or personal gain and just be obsessive about adhering to the rules.

So basically, rules lawyers come in Lawful Good (A), Lawful Evil (B), and Lawful Neutral (C) flavors?

Mordar
2016-09-08, 06:40 PM
So basically, rules lawyers come in Lawful Good (A), Lawful Evil (B), and Lawful Neutral (C) flavors?

I think (B) (with the caveat discussed above) is N/NE living in a Lawful world...using the law when it suits and ignoring it when it doesn't. The distinction on the "E" side of the slash is if they use the rules to harm other players as well as to help themselves...

- M

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 06:47 PM
So basically, rules lawyers come in Lawful Good (A), Lawful Evil (B), and Lawful Neutral (C) flavors?


I think (B) (with the caveat discussed above) is N/NE living in a Lawful world...using the law when it suits and ignoring it when it doesn't. *The distinction on the "E" side of the slash is if they use the rules to harm other players as well as to help themselves...

- M

...that's a really good way to put it, now that you mention it. Type (A) can probably come in Neutral Good, too, depending on how much of a stickler they are--they may be perfectly willing to toss the rules out the window in the interest of a good time being had by all (including the DM, generally, unless things have gotten so adversarial it'd likely be better to leave the group), even if they might be rather wonkish about knowing what the rule actually is first.

Mr Beer
2016-09-08, 07:13 PM
To me it means 'dogmatically adhering to the letter of the law rather than the spirit in order to gain an advantage' but also implies 'endlessly quibbling with the GM and other players rather than playing the damn game'.

This is the person who would rather argue for an hour as to why he should have hit the goblin than just carry on and finish the fight.

I refuse to have rules lawyering at the table, you get to say your piece within reason and I may agree or not but for the sake of keeping the game moving my decision is final. If it seems contentious I will add the caveat "we can check it later" and if I'm wrong, we'll do it the right way going forward. Also, it might sound like it's my way or the highway but if the point is minor I'm more likely to just agree with the player because that's less annoying for everyone than just being the guy who always says no.

veti
2016-09-08, 07:32 PM
I have some sympathy with the DM in this case.

Talakeal: why didn't you just ask what the difference is? It doesn't sound like it should take too long to explain.

Keeping that in mind: why would you reach for the books?

Well, I can't read your mind, obviously, but the most likely reason that springs to mind is: you don't trust the DM to explain the rule fairly and correctly, or you think the rule may contain subtleties of wording that change how it could apply.

To me that could be described as "rules lawyering", bearing in mind that the term doesn't have anything like a formally agreed definition.

Ruslan
2016-09-08, 07:34 PM
From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_lawyer)

"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."

bulbaquil
2016-09-08, 08:19 PM
...that's a really good way to put it, now that you mention it. Type (A) can probably come in Neutral Good, too, depending on how much of a stickler they are--they may be perfectly willing to toss the rules out the window in the interest of a good time being had by all (including the DM, generally, unless things have gotten so adversarial it'd likely be better to leave the group), even if they might be rather wonkish about knowing what the rule actually is first.

I'd say LG is something like "Here is what the rules say on the matter. However, I did agree prior to the game to let the GM make rulings on occasion so long as they're fair, cause no harm, and enhance the gameplay experience, and the decision the GM proposes is both in line with established story and setting lore, is unlikely to result in any significant harm to our characters, and will save time if it comes up again."

NG is like "Hmm... I'd like to see what the rules say first... Okay, it's a house ruling, but GMs can do that, and this seems more fun."

CG doesn't bother opening the rulebook and just goes with the ruling, provided they feel it enhances their game experience. If it doesn't, they'll complain and protest, but probably not on rules grounds.

Tanarii
2016-09-08, 08:29 PM
Like many derogatory terms, it basically boils down to 'I disagree with you the way you are doing this thing'.

I find it similar to 'logical'. The way people most commonly use it, it really just means 'this way of doing or thinking about things that makes the most sense to me'.

JAL_1138
2016-09-08, 08:41 PM
I have some sympathy with the DM in this case.

Talakeal: why didn't you just ask what the difference is? It doesn't sound like it should take too long to explain.

Keeping that in mind: why would you reach for the books?

Well, I can't read your mind, obviously, but the most likely reason that springs to mind is: you don't trust the DM to explain the rule fairly and correctly, or you think the rule may contain subtleties of wording that change how it could apply.

To me that could be described as "rules lawyering", bearing in mind that the term doesn't have anything like a formally agreed definition.


I can't speak for Talakeal, but I'd look at the book--I have a much easier time learning game mechanics with a combination of reading and explanation than by verbal explanation alone. And I'd never game with a DM who wouldn't let me crack the book open; I forget game rules and refresh myself on them reasonably frequently, and I sometimes need to see things rather than just hear them purely for the sake of retention and comprehension--it's not a question of trust or finding something to exploit, it's just how I learn and recall things. And I'm an actual lawyer IRL; I have a kind of compulsive need to see the exact text because of how many times the precise wording of a statute or regulation has mattered in my day job; again, it's not a trust thing, it's a feeling more like a cigarette craving, or straightening a picture that's hanging crooked or lining up the edges of two tables that have been pushed together so it doesn't drive you crazy. I'm also overly-literal fairly often, and subtleties of wording matter to my ability to understand the rule in the first place--the DM could give a completely correct explanation, but use language that can be interpreted more than one way...meaning I could misunderstand it without any fault or even error on their part (as an aside, 5e's printed rules are absolutely riddled with this kind of thing). A slight change or omission or gloss-over in wording for a quick explanation (that somebody else might grok perfectly well) may mean that I fundamentally misunderstand how it works, when the DM thought they were (and pretty much actually were) explaining it well. And to top that all off, I have some relatively-mild-but-enough-to-be-frustrating hearing trouble. It's much easier (and often faster) for everyone involved if I just look at the book first.

Traab
2016-09-08, 08:43 PM
I look at rules lawyers as the munchkin type. The lawyer bit is like, you ever watch those crime shows where the fancy pants lawyer twists everything around to fit the narrative he is going for? As an extreme (ly ridiculous) example, "Your honor, that was clearly not mass murder, it was my client attempting to aid in avoiding the overpopulation of earth! This man is a HERO for trying to keep the general population able to feed itself!" A rules lawyer is one who tries to twist the rules around until they mean what he wants them to mean. And always to his benefit. A lot of, "Well it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is." type of talk. Thats the really bad kind.

The more annoying version has also been mentioned before. The guy who bleeds RAW and will have a hissy fit if you deviate by so much as a single dice roll from it. "It says SPECIFICALLY in page 37 paragraph 6 sentence b, that this character in such a scenario can only do this, NOT that!" Doesnt matter if the dm is allowing it, ITS NOT IN THE RULES!!!!!! Or it is the dm and they insist on playing by the book even though its well known certain rules in older editions really suck the fun out of everything. Its a game, having a bit of flexibility is important if everyone is going to enjoy themselves.

Tiktakkat
2016-09-08, 09:47 PM
A Rules Lawyer is someone who knows the rules better than you do when it is inconvenient to you, especially if it makes you look bad.

It is intended as a pejorative, but it is really a confession that you either don't know the rules as well as you should, or that you are outright trying to get over.

Consider: what is not "rules lawyering"?

Not knowing you can only take one swift action per turn?
Not knowing you cannot take a full attack if you also move?
Not knowing your character dies at -10 hp?

Not know the rules is clearly bad, but knowing them is somehow worse?
Huh?
How does that work out exactly?
Tell me, would you really want to play poker with someone who didn't know your straight flush beats his four of a kind, and calls you a "rules lawyer" for insisting that you win the hand?
Yet a "rules lawyer" is supposed to be a horrible creature that must be banned from civilized RPG play.

The problem of course is, that people tend not to like all of the rules for a game for one reason or other.

One reason is optimization, where people may not want to deal with some particular combo and want to make it off limits.
But if they don't tell people ahead of time about that and someone shows up expecting to play the rules as written, they suddenly get accused of being a "rules lawyer" because the DM wants to ban something on the sly.

Another reason is RAW versus RAI. Some rules are just written poorly, because of minor grammatical errors, unintended consequences, just plain lazy writing and editing, and everything in between.
Now people disagree over the proper way to implement the rule, and whoever is losing the fight calls the other a "rules lawyer".

Then there are the "inconvenient" rules. You know, the ones that mean your awesome trick just doesn't plain work? Yeah, those. So people just "forget" about them.
And to short circuit being called what they are - cheaters - they accuse whoever notes the rule that shuts them down of being a "rules lawyer", and such scurrilous individuals are clearly not to be listened to, enabling the cheater to continue his antics.

There are other combos, but ultimately it all comes back to what I said:
A Rules Lawyer is someone who knows the rules better than you do when it is inconvenient to you, especially if it makes you look bad.

Vitruviansquid
2016-09-08, 09:58 PM
Rules Lawyering is when you approach interpretation of rules from the perspective of trying to win the game (or, since we're talking about tabletop RPGs where winning doesn't really exist, "from the perspective of trying to become powerful in the game").

Rules lawyering does not entail or even necessarily include having great understanding of the rules.

Zanos
2016-09-08, 10:49 PM
Calling someone a Rules Lawyer in a derogatory fashion implies that they cleave too closely to the book, either trying to eek out an advantage from poorly worded text, or to the detriment of the tables fun as a whole.

In my experience it's usually used by an accusation by DMs who want scenarios to turn out a certain way, and play fast and lose with the rules to make their desired outcome either significantly more likely or essentially inevitable.
The fact that you're playing a Storyteller System game makes this significant more likely. I've know STs that throw out the rules entirely because they wanted certain NPCs to be able to do certain things, and become very upset when you bring it up.

Pointing out that railroad tracks are of shoddy workmanship may irritate the craftsman.

golentan
2016-09-09, 01:05 AM
This is the type of thing that really gets my goat. When a player insists on nullifying a plot point because I made a mistake in the enemies build or the terrain layout of the encounter or had something that is possible in irl but not in the RAW (like an experienced warrior dying by falling off a roof).

The correct response to attempts to do that (as far as I've found) is "Are you arguing with the narrator?" and then carry on with the plot.

AMFV
2016-09-09, 01:05 AM
A Rules Lawyer is someone who knows the rules better than you do when it is inconvenient to you, especially if it makes you look bad.

It is intended as a pejorative, but it is really a confession that you either don't know the rules as well as you should, or that you are outright trying to get over.


That's just wrong. Typically knowing that you have only one swift action would almost never be Rules Lawyering. Rules Lawyering is the following: "Hey! Mr. DM the monster can't do that, he just used two swift actions!" Basically it's attempting to hold the DM to the rules or to exploit knowledge of the rules to try to figure out what sort of ability the monsters posses.

Tanarii
2016-09-09, 01:29 AM
One thing I've had to learn as a player who DMs more than plays, is don't stop the game for a damn rules argument.

Hell, I had to learn that as a DM in the D&D 3e era, when the rules got retardedly complicated. A on the spot ruling was worth it's gold in weight. Rules can be looked up *after* the game.


As far as opening a rule book during play goes: I've played with a lot of pickup groups in my time, far more than I have with people I know well (before the game, anyway). And the majority of DMs have some variation of a 'no rule books at the table' policy. Usually if a rule is needed they will either make a ruling or look it up themselves.

So I'd never reach for a rule book without first asking a DM 'you want me to look that up?' while sitting at a gaming table. Unless you know the DM well, in the public gaming arena it's best to assume it won't go over well to crack open a rules book during play.

themaque
2016-09-09, 03:54 AM
I was a rules lawyer in my younger days.

Strict adherence to the world and it would really get my goat when people would just fly in the face of rules. Not just in the grey areas poorly worded rules but making calls that have already been clearly defined in chapter 9 page 247. It's all right there in the side bar!

While annoying, I at least tried to be fair about it. I tried to keep myself to the same or higher standard even, or especially, to my own detriment. Working around and WITH the rules was the challenge, not just ignoring them.


Had a friend of mine who used his powers... for EVIL. Used his knowledge of the rules as a weapon against GM's and fellow players alike. He kind of made me see how what I was doing could easily be seen as ruining everyone else's fun.

Now i've mellowed in older age. Refer to myself as a Rules Consultant if it comes up.

"Hey, you know this normally works like this right?"

"Oh really? well we'll keep it like this for now."

"Cool, Cool. Cool Cool cool."

Really liked one GM who made my night when replied

"Yes, that's how it NORMALLY would work. but it doesn't here for reasons you don't quite know."

That made my night and i'm pretty sure he spun a whole minor side quest around him using a house rule he never told us about beforehand.

Cozzer
2016-09-09, 05:08 AM
If I, as the GM, was asked about it I'd say rules-lawyering is arguing about the rules in bad faith (usually hoping to change a decision by making arguing with you more tiring than just giving in). And if one feels the need to ask exactly how I determine what bad faith is... well, that question is rules-lawyering. :P

Honestly, giving an exact definition of "rules-lawyering" is self-defeating because it only invites rules-lawyers to rule-lawyer the definition itself. It's about how it feels, not about how many minutes it lasts or about which part of the rules it is.

Smorgonoffz
2016-09-09, 06:14 AM
rules-lawyering: some times happens when the DM start using/introduces Houserules WITHOUT informing the players first.

TSDR: DM'S MUST tell in advance any houserules they intent to use to avoid troubles.

Vinyadan
2016-09-09, 06:26 AM
I see the RL as three possible things. One is the handy fellow who knows all the rules and can help apply them or suggest possible outcomes without disrupting the flow. The other one is a variety of game interrupting jerks. The third is a player who can try to ensure fairness and realize when rule zero is being used as a weapon against players instead of pcs.

ngilop
2016-09-09, 06:51 AM
DM: Furthermore, I asked you to choose between A and B, and you brought up C, that is unacceptable behavior in my house."



This is the only thing that I even paid attention to in this whole post, and on that I have to agree with the DM.

I find it extremely rude to do such a thing.
FOr example One time me and a friend were having a discussion on which band was more influential. He support The Who, and I supported Led Zeppelin. After a good debate that lasted probably 20 or so minutes we asked another person, their answer was "well if you wanna know about influential bands, you have to always pick the Beatles."

Were you rules lawyering, most would say no, were you being rude; in my opinion yes. Such behavior is also unacceptable at my house where guests are expected to remain respectful, civil, and well-mannered.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-09-09, 07:20 AM
It's more like "knowing more about the rules than I do".

Okay, I see what the others have said about rules lawyers so far, and I'm here to chime in my two cents - that, despite all the negative connotations, being a rules lawyer isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Now, when most people talk about it, they usually mean someone trying to game the Rules As Written to gain an advantage, often causing the game to come to a halt in the process, due to their unwillingness to concede. This is usually a bad thing, as few people like to play with such a person.

Then there are those people who want to help the game run smoother. They will help clarify how Feat X or Class Feature Y works, give tips to their party members on how to optimize, or even help the GM figure out how things such as poison and disease work - though hopefully not at the expense of the party. They still know the rules and how they work, and they may still try to gain advantages where they can. But in the end, all they want to do is have fun with everyone. In fact, they can actually be a boon to a table of newcomers, as they can help everyone else understand the game.

Though, yeah, that is unfortunately not as common. People tend to have bad experiences with rules lawyers, and will often shut them down. Often a good thing, but frustrating if you aren't actually trying to game the system.
See, I think that's different from Rules Lawyering, because the term has a very firm negative connotation. If you're being a rules resource, rather than a walking argument, that's being "the helper," "the expert," whatever. Like in one of my current games-- I know Mutants and Masterminds better than anyone else, and the DM will sometimes ask me a rules question, or another player will ask about how to do a power stunt, but that's not lawyering.


Personally, I define the act of rules-lawyering as a player trying to push a specific interpretation of a rule or combination of rules, for any reason. That interpretation must be based on the actual text of the rules. The goal of the rules-laywer should be to get a specific ruling made.
This is a really good one.


As far as opening a rule book during play goes: I've played with a lot of pickup groups in my time, far more than I have with people I know well (before the game, anyway). And the majority of DMs have some variation of a 'no rule books at the table' policy. Usually if a rule is needed they will either make a ruling or look it up themselves.

So I'd never reach for a rule book without first asking a DM 'you want me to look that up?' while sitting at a gaming table. Unless you know the DM well, in the public gaming arena it's best to assume it won't go over well to crack open a rules book during play.
Huh, I've never seen that. Usually it's more the opposite, especially in casual play-- people don't know what their characters can do and constantly need to check abilities or spells in the rulebook.

JAL_1138
2016-09-09, 07:33 AM
Huh, I've never seen that. Usually it's more the opposite, especially in casual play-- people don't know what their characters can do and constantly need to check abilities or spells in the rulebook.

Ditto, that's been my experience--the books come out more in things like League play or con games than in home games.

EDIT: I even picked up a spare PHB recently to lend out when I'm running a League table.

Mith
2016-09-09, 08:24 AM
I think the definition of "rules lawyer" has been well hashed out. I dealt with it as a DM by talking with the one most likely to rules lawyer since he likes playing around with the mechanics more than I did. The agreement we reached was "If you see a potential problem, let me know. I will be much more amiable to a cooperative solution than a surprise."

In this case though, my friend is definitely a helper.

Tanarii
2016-09-09, 08:31 AM
Huh, I've never seen that. Usually it's more the opposite, especially in casual play-- people don't know what their characters can do and constantly need to check abilities or spells in the rulebook.


Ditto, that's been my experience--the books come out more in things like League play or con games than in home games.

EDIT: I even picked up a spare PHB recently to lend out when I'm running a League table.
Interesting, because that's not even close to my AL experience. Maybe it's just a regional thing. /shrug

Certainly 'spell cards' of some variety are very common, usually home-made. Because yeah, no one has all their spells details memorized. And DMs never know how they all work and depend on players to know the rules for their spells accurately. So yeah, that's a very important aspect of rules referencing that's going to happen at every D&D table relatively constantly. I just don't see it from the book normally. Anyone that does that is likely to be looked at as not being prepared / not knowing how to play their character.

Obviously doesn't apply if it's a pick-up/one-shot with premades. I don't really like the Con thing, so when I say 'public play' I'm almost always referring to AL. I can totally see rules books being common at Cons, especially if there are more off-the-cuff characters involved, or game systems that aren't normally played. That seems like it'd just be the nature of the beast.

Edit:
I was a rules lawyer in my younger days.

Strict adherence to the world and it would really get my goat when people would just fly in the face of rules. Not just in the grey areas poorly worded rules but making calls that have already been clearly defined in chapter 9 page 247. It's all right there in the side bar!
<&>
Now i've mellowed in older age.
Yep, that's pretty much me. Especially after I got involved in online discu... uh, arguments tbh ... during the D&D 3e days on the WotC forums. Because clearly the minutia of the rules I'd spent pages and pages debating was *RIGHT* dammit!

Then I realized I was just being really ****ing annoying to everyone else at the table, and pointlessly dragging out the game. What matters is a fair ruling for resolution by the DM on the spot, and moving on with the game. For a while I would intentionally remind myself that right before a game began, several times in a row, until it sank in. I still love getting into rules minutia on various forums, but at game time I put that aside and play the damn game.

Lorsa
2016-09-09, 08:40 AM
Obviously, as you can see, everyone has different ideas of what constitutes "rules lawyering". So, unless you want to use the wikipedia one (and rules lawyer everyone else into doing the same), I will add my own thoughts to the mix.

After having read lots of articles by the Angry GM lately (because of the thread), I think his idea that all actions in the game should be judged based on a three criteria is relevant to this discussion. How the world works, how the tone/theme of the game works, and how the rules work. I think this is quite obvious to anyone who has run games for a long time.

A rules lawyer then, is one that ignores two of these criteria in favor of only the game mechanics. If the game mechanics say A, then A it should be, regardless of how silly it is in the context of the setting/world, or how much it destroys the theme.

Obviously when you choose a setting and theme, you need to keep an eye out for the game mechanics, so you don't pick a game that totally contradicts your two first points (I've seen this happen), but no mechanics can fit flawlessly. Sometimes you have to make a judgement call and say that an action is or is not allowed because of how it would make sense for the world regardless of what the rules say.

Roleplaying game rules are not meant to be held as divine principle. They are guidelines, help for the group to make judgement calls in a consistent manner. A rules lawyer is one that DO see them as divine law, and fails to understand that there might be other considerations.

Cozzer
2016-09-09, 08:59 AM
I more or less agree, but for me a true rules lawyer is more than that: it's a person who thinks only the rules matter AND that doesn't understand or accept that other people can have different, equally valid, priorities.

I mean, I would probably be considered "too rules-focused" at some tables (and not rules-focused enough at others), but if I acknowledge that the others agree with how much the game is caring about the rules and I'm the discordant one, I either accept it and adapt or get out.

(What I want to say is: there's nothing bad in liking games in which rules trump context and theme. There's everything bad in wanting EVERY game to be like that.)

Tanarii
2016-09-09, 09:03 AM
A rules lawyer then, is one that ignores two of these criteria in favor of only the game mechanics. If the game mechanics say A, then A it should be, regardless of how silly it is in the context of the setting/world, or how much it destroys the theme.Does this mean you define Gamists as rules-lawyers?

wumpus
2016-09-09, 09:03 AM
One who thinks the rules in a book outweighs the word of the gamemaster

Lorsa
2016-09-09, 09:24 AM
Does this mean you define Gamists as rules-lawyers?

No? I don't see why these two would conflate under the definition I gave.

Someone playing to win, or beat challenges, who desires some form of game balance, can be equally interested in how the world works as anyone else.

Obviously people prioritize differently when it comes to making judgement calls on what actions to allow, but I don't think the GNS theory of perspectives takes that into account when placing you in a category. It deals more with your motivation for playing, not how you should judge action outcome.

From a gamist perspective, certain rule mechanics can be just as detrimental as from a narrativist/simulationist perspective. A gamist might be prone to ignore other types of RAW, but that is beside the point. In any case, a rules lawyer cares only for the rules, with very limited considerations to anything else (including game balance, which may be a top priority for a gamist).

Tanarii
2016-09-09, 09:34 AM
No? I don't see why these two would conflate under the definition I gave.Gamists see the rules as the rules, independent from the in-game world. A abstract tool merely for resolution. They fit the results and the in-game narrative together after the resolution.

As opposed to simulationists, for whom the game rules are an in-game physics engine. The rules and the in-game world must sync up and make sense.

Personally I find simulationsts, people that insist the rules and the in-game world must match up and make sense, to be far more rules-lawyerly, than gamists. They need detailed rules to simulate the in-game world, and thus the 'rightness' of rules interpretation matters to them far more.

Segev
2016-09-09, 09:37 AM
This is the only thing that I even paid attention to in this whole post, and on that I have to agree with the DM.

I find it extremely rude to do such a thing.

(...)

Were you rules lawyering, most would say no, were you being rude; in my opinion yes. Such behavior is also unacceptable at my house where guests are expected to remain respectful, civil, and well-mannered.

As he presented it, I don't think Talakeal was being rude. "Let me look up what you asked me about," barring the ST saying "don't bother; the difference is..." is just fine. Seeing a third option and asking, "Have you considered this one? It looks most appropriate," is not being rude. It's attempting to answer what is perceived as the underlying question.

Now, there are ways to do it that would be rude. And we only have Talakeal's side of the story, so we have no way of knowing if he's nefariously hiding his cruelly unconscionable snide presentation of it. But I generally find it best to assume nobody was being ruder than portrayed (and most were less so, if they're not portraying themselves).


So no, I don't think he was being rude. I think the ST might be being over-sensitive (though, again, if Talakeal was more rude than portrayed, that could make the ST's reaction more reasonable).

IShouldntBehere
2016-09-09, 09:57 AM
The kind of person that just has to be "Right". You seem them in all kinds of circumstances, "Rules Lawyer" is just the particular term folks have come up with them in RPGs. They might know the rules very well, they might have no idea what they're talking about that isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that they have their idea about the way the rules are supposed to work and come hell or high water they're going to try an badger anyone who disagrees with them into submission, particularly if that person has more authority than them (like the GM).

They're right and you're wrong and it's wrong that you're wrong when they're so obviously right. If you want to see "Rules Lawyering" in full swing just look at any of the 10+ page discussions on minor edge cases in the rules.

Basically, it's this guy: https://xkcd.com/386/ Just in real life.

Flickerdart
2016-09-09, 10:16 AM
The term actually has a very specific implication - a rules lawyer is not just someone who quotes rules, but who argues for a specific interpretation of those rules.

Saying "oh there's this initiative variant" is not rules lawyering. Reading a book is not rules lawyering. Cheating is not rules lawyering. Optimization is not rules lawyering.

Tanarii
2016-09-09, 10:18 AM
Optimization is not rules lawyering.Although often it goes hand in hand with it, using your definition.

TheFamilarRaven
2016-09-09, 10:21 AM
Off topic maybe, but isn't "rules lawyer" redundant? :smalltongue: like ATM machine?

Anyway, I've never seen it as a bad thing, of course I've generally been the most rules-savvy in my group (and I'm not even that rules savvy) and I like to argue, so I might be biased on that point :smalltongue:.

I found I had to do it a lot more when I switched over to Pathfinder from 3.5. It was the first group I played PF and since it was similar to 3.5 in many ways, I operated under the assumption that PF worked exactly like 3.5 until shown otherwise. And since the DM runs his games with 3.5 material, the differences in rules never were obvious.

Example, I didn't know sneak attack worked on undead and constructs in PF until like, 6 months ago... The biggest argument I got into was with another player. I mentioned how awesome smite evil could be, especially on a critical hit, which was met with a fierce rebuttal. I don't recall exactly, but I believe his argument came down to, "extra damage from magical effects don't get multiplied"...

Of course I might be what JAL_1138 might consider a type B rules advocate. I'm more than willing to prove my DM wrong when he runs a creature with Regeneration or Fast Healing as Damage Reduction :smallannoyed: ... But I won't mention the fact that the party Rogue can't use the Dervish Dance feat while duel-wielding scimitars...

edit: okay, redundant may not be the best word ... the point is, is it necessary to indicate that someone is "rules lawyer"? Aren't ALL lawyers concerned with rules? :smalltongue:

IShouldntBehere
2016-09-09, 10:48 AM
Although often it goes hand in hand with it, using your definition.

To some extent it requires it. Optimization is about finding the ideal solution to a particular set of the problems. The Optimizer is inherently trying to "Solve" the game, to "Win at the loading screen" to borrow some MOBA terminology. This kind of play style doesn't play nicely with fuzziness. Rules that might be interpreted one way or another make optimization harder or in some cases impossible, since you can't know the problem you're trying to solve ahead of time.

If you're going to optimize you really need to do against a specific set of interpretations, since interpretations of rules are functionally no different from rules themselves in the context of moment-to-moment play.

Rakoa
2016-09-09, 10:58 AM
This is the only thing that I even paid attention to in this whole post, and on that I have to agree with the DM.

I find it extremely rude to do such a thing.
FOr example One time me and a friend were having a discussion on which band was more influential. He support The Who, and I supported Led Zeppelin. After a good debate that lasted probably 20 or so minutes we asked another person, their answer was "well if you wanna know about influential bands, you have to always pick the Beatles."

Were you rules lawyering, most would say no, were you being rude; in my opinion yes. Such behavior is also unacceptable at my house where guests are expected to remain respectful, civil, and well-mannered.

He didn't say, "Actually A and B are both awful, we should use C." He said, "Have you heard of C before? It might be worth looking into." There is nothing rude about that. He's making sure the DM is aware of every option so that everyone can come to a full agreement on what is best to do. That just makes sense to me.

And as for your example... I don't see your point even there. If you invite someone to join your debate, and they do so with their own horse rather than betting on one of your own...so what?

I don't see how Talakeal was being anything but respectful, civil, and well-mannered. If you were to get angry at someone for bringing up The Beatles, I'd say you are being disrespectful, uncivil, and poor-mannered.

Flickerdart
2016-09-09, 11:16 AM
Although often it goes hand in hand with it, using your definition.

No, it is a subtle difference.

Not rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Optimizer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: Okay.

Not rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Optimizer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: I'm not sure if that's right, let's check after the game.

Not rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Optimizer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: These feats do not work that way together.
Optimizer: Okay.

Not rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Optimizer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: This is too strong for my game, please change it.
Optimizer: Okay.

Rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Rules Lawyer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: I'm not sure if that's right, let's check after the game.
Rules Lawyer: No no it's simple, let me just explain it...

Rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Rules Lawyer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: These feats do not work that way together.
Rules Lawyer: Here is a link to a forum post where King Optimizy explains in a seventeen-page essay why this is totally legit.

Rules lawyering:
DM: How are you getting such a high attack?
Rules Lawyer: I took this, this, and this feats.
DM: This is too strong for my game, please change it.
Rules Lawyer: But muh rules!

Tiktakkat
2016-09-09, 12:11 PM
That's just wrong. Typically knowing that you have only one swift action would almost never be Rules Lawyering. Rules Lawyering is the following: "Hey! Mr. DM the monster can't do that, he just used two swift actions!" Basically it's attempting to hold the DM to the rules or to exploit knowledge of the rules to try to figure out what sort of ability the monsters posses.

Turn that around:
The player attempts to use 2 swift actions in the game.
The DM says he cannot to it.
Is the DM Rules Lawyering or is the player cheating and being called on it?
Why is holding the DM to the rules somehow a bad thing?

As for exploiting knowledge of the rules to try to figure out what sort of ability the monsters posses, if the rules allow it, how is that exploiting them?
If in D20, the rules say you can use a knowledge skill to identify the special abilities of a monster, it is Rules Lawyering to put points in those skills and expect to be able to make the roll?
If you can use spellcraft to identify active spells, it is Rules Lawyering to make a roll to determine what spells the monster has active?
If silver can bypass the DR on lycanthropes, is it Rules Lawyering to buy a silver weapon?
Or do research or ask NPCs what they know about lycanthropes so you can figure out you should buy a silver weapon?
Or to use survival and Track to identify the footprints as those of a werewolf so you know you need a silver weapon?
Why is knowing the rules so you can use them as intended somehow a bad thing?

AMFV
2016-09-09, 12:19 PM
Turn that around:
The player attempts to use 2 swift actions in the game.
The DM says he cannot to it.
Is the DM Rules Lawyering or is the player cheating and being called on it?
Why is holding the DM to the rules somehow a bad thing?

The scenario doesn't work when it's turned around. A DM can't really be a rules lawyer, it's a player problem. And whether the player is cheating depends on what sort of abilities she has, if they have an ability that allows it the whole scenario is different. The difference here being that the player has no reason to know all of the DM's decisions, and then that the DM has a different set of abilities.

Holding the DM to the rules is a bad thing in almost every system, because there might be a reason why they aren't following them. Possibly the character has abilities that allow that. Or the DM has other reasons to have modified the abilities of the creature then it's a different thing.



As for exploiting knowledge of the rules to try to figure out what sort of ability the monsters posses, if the rules allow it, how is that exploiting them?
If in D20, the rules say you can use a knowledge skill to identify the special abilities of a monster, it is Rules Lawyering to put points in those skills and expect to be able to make the roll?
If you can use spellcraft to identify active spells, it is Rules Lawyering to make a roll to determine what spells the monster has active?
If silver can bypass the DR on lycanthropes, is it Rules Lawyering to buy a silver weapon?
Or do research or ask NPCs what they know about lycanthropes so you can figure out you should buy a silver weapon?
Or to use survival and Track to identify the footprints as those of a werewolf so you know you need a silver weapon?
Why is knowing the rules so you can use them as intended somehow a bad thing?

Knowing the rules isn't really a bad thing. Arguing with the rules with your DM is a really different proposition.

Quertus
2016-09-09, 12:38 PM
To parallel this specific example,

DM: we're ordering lunch, would you like falafel or dal saag?
Player: <grabs menu to see what those are, and to check prices> you know, they also sell pizza - have you guys tried it?
DM: You should never open a menu in my house, and never quote the menu to me. That's rude, and rules lawyering.

Um, no. DM needs to have his head examined.

So, obviously, it's an oft-misused term.

To try to remove the negative connotation, I refer to myself as a rules lawyer whenever I fix something in a game.

When 3e first came out, I sat down at a table where everyone - players and DM - were applying their metamagics for free. Even though I play spellcasters, even though this method was to my advantage, I pointed out that that's not how that works. Once I got everyone to actually read and understand the rules, I promptly and proudly declared myself a rules lawyer.

One of my "best" (most useful) 2e characters was Amalak. I would play him when I was new to a group, and I knew they called out for name, AC, etc. When filling out the roster, I would declare an AC worse than 10. Which everyone knew to be impossible. I would carefully explain how it was possible, and thus introduce myself as a rules lawyer - but one who does so fit the sake of the rules, not for his own benefit.

I'll spoiler some of my specific replies for length.


Imagine playing Monopoly, where the banker asks what you want to do, and says, OK, give me three oranges for that. Then, one day, you realize that the colored slips of paper have numbers on the back. And, if you add the numbers together, it makes the banker's alternate rules of handing him two pinks instead of a yellow make sense.

Imagine being told you're rude / a bad player / a rules lawyer for turning those pieces of paper over.

Now, imagine further that most bankers cheat. They change the prices of things or the exchange rate in order to make the game "more fun" - which usually amounts to them or their friends winning, while making sure Fred always loses.

Take Fred out of that environment, teach him the way the game really works, and suddenly he gets a lot better at the game, and has a lot more fun to boot.

Rules Lawyers are the Good Guys.


It's a nebulous term. As I see it, there's really something like three kinds:

A) The helper. This person knows the rules really well (or at least how to look them up and interpret them quickly) and helps the DM or the party resolve questions and follow the rules (or understand the rules well enough to make an informed break away from them), and is typically willing to do so when it's to their own disadvantage too. This variant will probably engage in some discussion/argument with the table, generally not as much as other varieties, but the primary goal is fairness (for the whole table) rather than personal gain, and they're typically willing to accept (fair and/or reasonable) house rules/rulings. The helper doesn't want to be disruptive, but they may end up being disruptive if they think something's unfair or unreasonable, or may slow the game to a crawl by trying to look up and explain every bit of rules minutia that anyone asks about.
EDIT: Draconium beat me to it with a very good explanation of this type. Check their post above.

B) The jerk. This is the person who tries to use the rules for personal gain, or uses the rules to shaft another player, or uses the rules to annoy the DM, or uses the rules for other shenanigans not otherwise covered. They usually really don't care if anyone else has a good time.
EDIT: As Mordar pointed out in the post below, this type generally doesn't care if the DM gets a rule wrong or misses something, as long as it's in their favor. They may also conveniently ignore errata or other rules that contradict the shenanigans they're trying to pull.

C) The other jerk. This person insists on everyone FOLLOWING THE RULES!!! and throws a hissy fit over house-rules even when they're fair/reasonable. Usually takes the game waaaaay too seriously, and is generally unconcerned with anybody else's fun. Often overlaps with B, but is still in a separate category because they might not be trying for shenanigans or personal gain and just be obsessive about adhering to the rules.

Great explanation. As you can no doubt tell, I'm... mostly A, with a little C.


So basically, rules lawyers come in Lawful Good (A), Lawful Evil (B), and Lawful Neutral (C) flavors?

IME, B is more often chaotic than lawful. They dint care about the rules, or interpreting them correctly, or about the party, they only care about their own personal benefit.



I'd say LG is something like "Here is what the rules say on the matter. However, I did agree prior to the game to let the GM make rulings on occasion so long as they're fair, cause no harm, and enhance the gameplay experience, and the decision the GM proposes is both in line with established story and setting lore, is unlikely to result in any significant harm to our characters, and will save time if it comes up again."

You forgot the true Lawful Good response.

The Rules Paladin: well, I did agree to allow the GM to make occasional rulings, as long as they are both fair and enhance the fun, but this GM's rules changes are incessant, irrational (chaotic), and detrimental to both the story and the enjoyment of all (evil). So it is both my right and my responsibility to slay to GM argue with the GM for hours or days if need be in order to provide a more wholesome environment for gaming. And, perhaps, I might even save the GMs soul from the fiery pit where they rewire your every intended action. Try to scratch an itch, and you put your foot in your mouth; try to make the pain stop, and you say, "please whip me again".


Basically it's attempting to hold the DM to the rules or to exploit knowledge of the rules to try to figure out what sort of ability the monsters posses.

That's... one of the best parts of the game. How can you connect the werewolves that are taking extra actions to the fast civilians, and track it back to the merchant selling buzz buzz fruit, if you can't recognize that the werewolves are breaking the action rules in the first place?


"Yes, that's how it NORMALLY would work. but it doesn't here for reasons you don't quite know."

That sounds like something I'd hear I'm a game I'm enjoying. All right, gang, it's time to investigate!

Tiktakkat
2016-09-09, 12:39 PM
The scenario doesn't work when it's turned around. A DM can't really be a rules lawyer, it's a player problem. And whether the player is cheating depends on what sort of abilities she has, if they have an ability that allows it the whole scenario is different. The difference here being that the player has no reason to know all of the DM's decisions, and then that the DM has a different set of abilities.

Sure he can.
In fact pretty much all expansion material is predicated on DMs Rules Lawyering. They know they can't get over with the existing material, so they bring in new stuff that the players cannot possibly be prepared for.
You wouldn't expect a player to be able to make up new abilities for himself and introduce them by surprise, yet somehow that is treated as the default for the DM/writers.


Holding the DM to the rules is a bad thing in almost every system, because there might be a reason why they aren't following them. Possibly the character has abilities that allow that. Or the DM has other reasons to have modified the abilities of the creature then it's a different thing.

If there is a reason, then the DM can let the players know ahead of time.
Or, if the character has abilities that allow something different, the DM can say "Yes, I know the rule. This monster has something that allows him to transcend that. Figuring out what is part of the mystery in the adventure."


Knowing the rules isn't really a bad thing. Arguing with the rules with your DM is a really different proposition.

Questioning is not arguing.
What if the DM is actually making a mistake?
That happened to me. I confused using a potion as a move action instead of a standard action, and had a monster drink and attack. A player told me I couldn't do that, and I didn't understand why until he showed me.

AMFV
2016-09-09, 12:44 PM
Sure he can.
In fact pretty much all expansion material is predicated on DMs Rules Lawyering. They know they can't get over with the existing material, so they bring in new stuff that the players cannot possibly be prepared for.
You wouldn't expect a player to be able to make up new abilities for himself and introduce them by surprise, yet somehow that is treated as the default for the DM/writers.

No, the correct analogy for a DM would be rules "Judge" they have the job of adjudicating the rules. And in many cases DM's are also allowed to create rules for the game. Of course, there are games that don't necessarily work that way.




If there is a reason, then the DM can let the players know ahead of time.
Or, if the character has abilities that allow something different, the DM can say "Yes, I know the rule. This monster has something that allows him to transcend that. Figuring out what is part of the mystery in the adventure."


But the point is that there's no reason for the DM to have to explain that to him in most games



Questioning is not arguing.
What if the DM is actually making a mistake?
That happened to me. I confused using a potion as a move action instead of a standard action, and had a monster drink and attack. A player told me I couldn't do that, and I didn't understand why until he showed me.

Well that's one thing, but the difference is that once the DM has clarified that it isn't in error the rules lawyer continues to argue the matter. That's what makes them a rules lawyer

IShouldntBehere
2016-09-09, 12:50 PM
No, the correct analogy for a DM would be rules "Judge" they have the job of adjudicating the rules. And in many cases DM's are also allowed to create rules for the game. Of course, there are games that don't necessarily work that way.

To put this in a concrete example. The player venture into the Temple of Time & Space which has been taken over been numerous horrible monsters from beyond the boundaries of the multi-verse. One of the monsters created for this example has the following ability:

Chrono Distillation[2] When initiative is rolled, a creature with this ability rolls twice taking a turn on each of those initiative counts. On each of those turns it may take two actions, two bonus actions but still moves normally.

How you feel about the DM doing so says something about your play style and what you're looking to get out of the game.

Tiktakkat
2016-09-09, 01:01 PM
No, the correct analogy for a DM would be rules "Judge" they have the job of adjudicating the rules. And in many cases DM's are also allowed to create rules for the game. Of course, there are games that don't necessarily work that way.

"Adjudicating" is not "creating".
Would you be satisfied with an umpire deciding that two singles in a row constitutes a home run?
What if a referee informed you mid-game that scoring three three-pointers in a row was a personal foul?
How about a referee telling you that you can only advance a maximum of 20 yards per down or return?


But the point is that there's no reason for the DM to have to explain that to him in most games

Yes, there is.
If the DM is creating or introducing new rules mid-game, then it is very much incumbent on him to explain those new rules to players who are confused by them.


Well that's one thing, but the difference is that once the DM has clarified that it isn't in error the rules lawyer continues to argue the matter. That's what makes them a rules lawyer

And if the DM does not clarify that it isn't in error?
If the DM challenges a player and gets upset because the player is correct?

A DM has just as much an obligation to respect the players as the players have to respect the DM.
Falling back on "Because I'm the DM!" is just as obnoxious as falling back on "But the rules say so!"

Keltest
2016-09-09, 01:10 PM
"Adjudicating" is not "creating".
Would you be satisfied with an umpire deciding that two singles in a row constitutes a home run?
What if a referee informed you mid-game that scoring three three-pointers in a row was a personal foul?
How about a referee telling you that you can only advance a maximum of 20 yards per down or return?

Dungeons and Dragons is not baseball, or football, or any other non-D&D game. The DM does not simply enforce the rules, he provides rulings and, at times, alters rules or even introduces new ones. It his job to be that judge, and he is perfectly within his rights to make up whatever rules or rulings he wants. This is counterbalanced by the rights of the players to go to a different DM if these rules are not of interest to them.

Segev
2016-09-09, 01:28 PM
Anybody who is arguing over implications and interactions of the rules is being a rules lawyer. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a good thing if it helps establish a foundation for future understanding. Players can do it. GMs can do it.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-09-09, 01:37 PM
If the DM is ignoring the rules because he wants to he's a bad DM, and probably a bad person.

This is different from a DM making a ruling on a situation that isn't covered by the rules. It is also different from making changes to the rules in advance and explaining to the players what he did and why he did it. If you're routinely house ruling things, though, then maybe it's time to play a different game.

VoxRationis
2016-09-09, 02:00 PM
If the DM is ignoring the rules because he wants to he's a bad DM, and probably a bad person.

This is different from a DM making a ruling on a situation that isn't covered by the rules. It is also different from making changes to the rules in advance and explaining to the players what he did and why he did it. If you're routinely house ruling things, though, then maybe it's time to play a different game.

You don't think it's possible to agree with the core structure of a system but want to make tweaks to its rules to better suit your intended tone, setting, and style?

Tiktakkat
2016-09-09, 02:19 PM
If the DM is ignoring the rules because he wants to he's a bad DM, and probably a bad person.

This is different from a DM making a ruling on a situation that isn't covered by the rules. It is also different from making changes to the rules in advance and explaining to the players what he did and why he did it. If you're routinely house ruling things, though, then maybe it's time to play a different game.

Bingo!

There is a clear difference between asking about and discussing rules, and just plain being a jerk.

That applies on both sides of the screen.

As I said though, nobody wants to called a jerk, so they just call the other person a "Rules Lawyer" first.
It is the gamer equivalent of blaming Canada.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-09-09, 02:41 PM
You don't think it's possible to agree with the core structure of a system but want to make tweaks to its rules to better suit your intended tone, setting, and style?

It really depends on the system and the tweaks you're making. Sure, some small tweaks are fine, especially to rules that don't impact the players. A lot of the time this will fall under making new rules for stuff that doesn't exist, which is even more fine. But if you find yourself hacking and slashing the rules then maybe consider the possibility that there might be a different game that does what you want better than this one does.

And for the love of god, talk about changes with the players in advance. Don't spring changes on them. The worst example I ever saw of this was halfway up a cliff the DM going "Oh by the way, I changed the falling damage rules because I don't like how survivable falls are in D&D."

Telok
2016-09-09, 02:41 PM
How about this: Rules Lawering is using game rules to not play the game to have fun with other people also having fun.

Essentially using rules as a method or excuse to unfun things.

Quertus
2016-09-09, 02:58 PM
How about this: Rules Lawering is using game rules to not play the game to have fun with other people also having fun.

Essentially using rules as a method or excuse to unfun things.

So... DMing = Rules Lawyering? Sorry, I've had so many bad DMs, that's what I thought when I read this.

Thrudd
2016-09-09, 05:36 PM
I wouldn't call this a rules lawyering situation, the way it was presented as a suggestion offered when the GM asked for opinions, and totally normal.

A rules lawyer would bust open the book or cite the rule, claiming the GM was wrong, after the GM had told the players his decision.

Knowing the rules, alone, isn't rules lawyering. There is a fine line to be distinguished between informing the group of rules they were genuinely unclear about and citing rules as an argument that the GM or another player is doing something wrong. It isn't wrong or unheard of for a GM to be mistaken about a rule and it's ok to admit that: there's a difference between a deliberate house ruling and covering up for a lack of knowledge by invoking "rule 0" or acting imperious about the GMs authority.

There is an argument to be made that even informing about rules in good faith, if it is done during the game and interrupts the "flow", may be seen as disruptive or rude. That depends a bit on the group and the game. But after game discussions should not be a problem.

The GM can't be a rules lawyer, the GM IS the rules, for all intents and purposes. However, the GM does have an obligation to know the rules in the book. It is not incorrect for players to expect a game to be played by the rules as written: any intent to ignore, change or add rules should be stated up-front. This should cut down on rules arguments during the game. Additionally, a clear "no books at the table" policy will help as well.

A rules lawyer has no leg to stand on when the GM is clear in the beginning that they do not intend to follow some or all of the rules as written, and "fly by the seat if the pants" with on the spot rulings. Of course, as pointed out earlier, this GM style can be frustrating for strategic and tactical players who want to know what their precise limitations and abilities are.

I am the type of person who will rule by-the -book for all situations where there is a clear rule. If I don't like a rule, I will change it and tell the players that (so my games will potentially have a supplementary rule book written by me). I expect players to ask if they aren't clear how something works or if something could work and I will tell them. My word on the matter is final, but I will check the book if I need to. If I got a rule wrong (not a deliberate house rule) I will make sure it is done correctly from then on. I have no problem with players looking in the player's rule book during the game and questioning me, I'll happily tell them if I'm doing something differently, but that's where the discussion ends.
I would consider a rules lawyer to be someone who argues with me about my decisions and house rules after my decisuon has been made. Especially heinous is if they comment on a monster's stats or behavior or the operation of a magic item: monster manual and DMG peeking are big no no's during my D&D games.

Talakeal
2016-09-09, 05:53 PM
Ok, so this thread has helped a lot.

Basically, what I am getting is that "rules-lawyer" boils down to is someone who argues the letter of the rules or some twisted interpretation thereof to give themselves an advantage.

It is often confused with a "rules-Nazi" who insists that everyone obey the rules at all times to the detriment of everyone's good time. I imagine there is quite a bit of overlap between the two, both in personalities and behaviors, and many times people are both at once, so this confusion in understandable.

It is often used as an accusation against someone who called you out on your mistakes / cheating in an effort to save face.

So, in my OP, the DM was actually accusing me of being a "rules-Nazi" rather than a "rules-lawyer", to which he is, for whatever reason, very oversensitive?



I have some sympathy with the DM in this case.

Talakeal: why didn't you just ask what the difference is? It doesn't sound like it should take too long to explain.

Keeping that in mind: why would you reach for the books?

Well, I can't read your mind, obviously, but the most likely reason that springs to mind is: you don't trust the DM to explain the rule fairly and correctly, or you think the rule may contain subtleties of wording that change how it could apply.

To me that could be described as "rules lawyering", bearing in mind that the term doesn't have anything like a formally agreed definition.

I don't know. I don't trust the DM in question, but I don't think that has a lot to do with it as I prefer to look things up myself rather than ask for a verbal explanation even in games where I have a high level of trust for the person I am running with.

Maybe it is a desire not to waylay everyone else at the table with a long verbal discussion, or maybe it is just habit.

Heck, maybe it is a control thing; I remember in the gaming groups I played with as a teenagers we would always fight for the right to be the one who looked something up and asking to see the printed rules was always seen as something of a challenge. If you asked to be handed a book to look something up the person you asked would, 9 times out 10, look it up themselves rather than hand you the book as if holding the book was some sort of symbolic authority.

I even remember one particularly dramatic example, playing Warhammer at a friends house when I felt my opponent's army had too many models in it (either intentionally or not) so I picked up his army list to double check the math for myself and he physically tore it out of my hands with such force he knocked a whole bunch of his models on the floor and shoved me into a glass pane door. Afterwards he told me that I was lucky neither the door nor the models had broken because he would have insisted I pay for them as his assault was fully justified as I had put my hands on his property without permission.

That sort of behavior is less common as we are older, but it is certainly a thing.

Now, my story in the OP lacks an element of time and context. It wasn't like he asked me a question and I halted the game while I looked up an answer. He asked the question of the entire group and then went about asking other people their opinions while I looked it up, and I waited until there was a lull in the conversation to say my piece, I was not delaying or interrupting the game.

However, the previous week there was an odd contest of wills. One player wanted to look up how one of his gifts worked before his turn and refused to tell anyone what he was looking up or why (even though the DM had printed off a cheat sheet of player abilities before the game). He couldn't find the gift and refused to say anything more than "I am looking something up, let me do it myself" for what felt like a good 5 or 10 minutes. It was some sort of odd contest of wills between the player and the DM and now that I think back on it the DM was probably still hurting from that experience and trying to overcorrect with me.


This is the only thing that I even paid attention to in this whole post, and on that I have to agree with the DM.

I find it extremely rude to do such a thing.
For example One time me and a friend were having a discussion on which band was more influential. He support The Who, and I supported Led Zeppelin. After a good debate that lasted probably 20 or so minutes we asked another person, their answer was "well if you wanna know about influential bands, you have to always pick the Beatles."

Were you rules lawyering, most would say no, were you being rude; in my opinion yes. Such behavior is also unacceptable at my house where guests are expected to remain respectful, civil, and well-mannered.

I imagine you don't have many repeat guests :p

I don't know man, I think inviting someone over to your house and then spending the evening policing their conversation to be a heck of a lot ruder than offering your own spin on things when someone asks your opinion. And maybe its just because I traditional game with young socially awkward bachelors, but if I only accepted gamers who were respectful, polite, and well-mannered the entire session I don't think I would ever find a gaming group.

Also, see my response to Veti above, the way I presented the OP might make these seem a bit different than it actually was IRL.

ngilop
2016-09-09, 07:41 PM
I imagine you don't have many repeat guests :p

I don't know man, I think inviting someone over to your house and then spending the evening policing their conversation to be a heck of a lot ruder than offering your own spin on things when someone asks your opinion. And maybe its just because I traditional game with young socially awkward bachelors, but if I only accepted gamers who were respectful, polite, and well-mannered the entire session I don't think I would ever find a gaming group.

Also, see my response to Veti above, the way I presented the OP might make these seem a bit different than it actually was IRL.

I actually have a very steady group, and may gain an additional player or 2 this Saturday. I feel that if you treat somebody in a way that makes them feel like they are a human being, they return the favor.

what you did is not much difference than this example " hey man, you got anything to drink" "Yeah dude.. I have tea and juice.. of course if you want water that fine as well." "Oh, i'll take a mountain dew"

I think when somebody is in your house, it is your rules they have to follow. I am allergic to cigarette smoke, hence a firm no smoking policy. Telling somebody to go outside I guess is your definition of 'ruder' even though I pay the bills and it is my house?

Talakeal
2016-09-09, 07:53 PM
I actually have a very steady group, and may gain an additional player or 2 this Saturday. I feel that if you treat somebody in a way that makes them feel like they are a human being, they return the favor.

what you did is not much difference than this example " hey man, you got anything to drink" "Yeah dude.. I have tea and juice.. of course if you want water that fine as well." "Oh, i'll take a mountain dew"

I think when somebody is in your house, it is your rules they have to follow. I am allergic to cigarette smoke, hence a firm no smoking policy. Telling somebody to go outside I guess is your definition of 'ruder' even though I pay the bills and it is my house?

If they are asking for something that you already said you don't have is just plain weird. But if offer a choice between beverages someone doesn't like and they politely ask you if there is an alternative then no, I don't see that as rude, and certainly not crossing into the "not treating someone like a human being" or "unacceptable in my house" territory.

As for your smoking example, no of course that is fine. And again, there is a world of difference between not aggravating someone's allergies and coming down on them for voicing an opinion on the subject rather than directly answering a binary question.

Kane0
2016-09-09, 08:39 PM
I remember back in a 'types of gamers' thread there were three different categories of rules-lawyers called out:
Lesser Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to leverage an advantage for himself in the game
Greater Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to mediate disputes and enhance mechanical game balance
Master Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to seamlessly enhance the game experience for all at the table

Quertus
2016-09-09, 09:57 PM
I remember back in a 'types of gamers' thread there were three different categories of rules-lawyers called out:
Lesser Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to leverage an advantage for himself in the game
Greater Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to mediate disputes and enhance mechanical game balance
Master Lawyer- Uses his knowledge of the rules to seamlessly enhance the game experience for all at the table

Woot! Somebody remembered my rules lawyers example!

Silva Stormrage
2016-09-09, 11:11 PM
This is obviously rules lawyering (if not perhaps the most well-optimized rules lawyering). The component pouch isn't supposed to be an extradimensional portal to a custom-order bakery or the collected penny jars of all the grandmothers in the land.


You know I now want to make that a minor artifact in my current D&D campaign. Basically a spell component pouch that literally does have infinite of every component via dimensional/magic exploitation XD. Probably would limit the copper pieces for a limit per day thing but that could be very amusing.

Keltest
2016-09-10, 08:18 AM
You know I now want to make that a minor artifact in my current D&D campaign. Basically a spell component pouch that literally does have infinite of every component via dimensional/magic exploitation XD. Probably would limit the copper pieces for a limit per day thing but that could be very amusing.

Were I to do something like that I would just say that the copper is so badly worn that, while it counts as a cp for the spell, nobody recognizes it as actual currency, and the cost of melting it down to turn it into real money costs more than you would gain, because copper.

beargryllz
2016-09-10, 10:25 AM
A rules lawyer is a person who thinks they know more about the game mechanics than someone else at the table and will present an argument contradicting this person.

They may or may not be correct, but they'll put forth the argument in either case.

Thanks to google, there really isn't a huge problem with rules-lawyering anymore because you can settle most disputes in about 30 seconds, barely breaking the immersion.

Tanarii
2016-09-10, 10:36 AM
Thanks to google, there really isn't a huge problem with rules-lawyering anymore because you can settle most disputes in about 30 seconds, barely breaking the immersion.
A rules lawyer is a player that googles the rules during a game, unless specifically instructed to do so by the DM.

SpoonR
2016-09-10, 11:47 AM
Rules lawyering as a PC: Trying to play Pun-Pun. Using an infinite peasant rail gun, infinite speed mount/dismount shenanigans, or a cat. Arguing after GM makes a final in-game-time ruling (take it to the after game emails instead)
Rules lawyering as a GM: Mary Sue, especially adding abilities on the fly to protect it from the PCs (going from 'wearing the best magical armor' to 'can melt all PC's weapons as a free action'). Applying either of two contradictory house rules depending whether the GM approves of what the player tries to do.

Not rules lawyering: asking for clarification. Asking if the GM remembers an important rule (that dragon is at the 'flying high' altitude. Doesn't it need to take some time to dive to low altitude before it can attack?). Having player C who knows the rules back & forward, making him the target of all rules questions (for a GM who makes a great story but can't remember the little rules without flipping through the book, and a player who knows the rules but just can't GM). The scenario in an old dragon magazine of "we prop up the dead minotaur, use illusions to make it look like a big mad demon, and push it at the bandits. What happens?"

'No rulebooks at the table' is just absurd. First off, trying to fit all the details of Prismatic Spray on a notecard instead of putting a book marker at the right page? Less processing time to open the book and read the nicely printed, with tables, info vs trying to figure out the abbreviations on the card. Secondly, players will do stuff if they get bored while waiting for their turn to come back around. Better they flip through the book for ideas than bringing a smartphone and playing Angry Borgs, or walk out for a too-long cig break.

Kish
2016-09-10, 12:34 PM
A rules lawyer is a player who insists that if it's in the book, it's something everyone has to go by. Allergic to house rules, doesn't care that stupid RAW is stupid. As a player, may try to create Pun-Pun and scream when told something like "sarrukhs don't exist in the Greyhawk campaign setting" or "Pazuzu chuckles and tells your utterly power-hungry, amoral character that he was never actually a paladin and Pazuzu doesn't grant wishes to Chaotic Evil delusionals." As a DM, will be helpless to prevent it should a player try to create Pun-Pun.

Tanarii
2016-09-10, 01:08 PM
Secondly, players will do stuff if they get bored while waiting for their turn to come back around. Better they flip through the book for ideas than bringing a smartphone and playing Angry Borgs, or walk out for a too-long cig break.
Or they could, y'know, pay attention to the game. And the DM can keep the game paced and engaging so they don't lose interest.

nedz
2016-09-10, 02:04 PM
Hmm, I've always understood the term to mean someone who derails the game with a rules based argument. Thus: this is an example of disruptive behaviour.

If looking up a rule doesn't disrupt the game then it's not a problem.

In the case given it's not clear, but the DM may have been trying to assert authority. If he was instead worried about TK affecting his pacing then he should not have asked a rules question in the first place.

SethoMarkus
2016-09-10, 02:55 PM
what you did is not much difference than this example " hey man, you got anything to drink" "Yeah dude.. I have tea and juice.. of course if you want water that fine as well." "Oh, i'll take a mountain dew"



Wrong. The OP example is: "Hey, have anything to drink?" "Yes; tea or juice." "Can I have water?" "What?! Outrageous! This is my house and I offered you tea or juice, you can't juat ask for a third option! Get out!"

"Water" is a third option that is available but was not offered. It is fine if the DM said, "no, sorry, my tap is broken", or, "I'd rather not bring water out for X reason", but accusing the guest of being out of line for asking about water is hugely rude and inappropriate.

flond
2016-09-10, 07:13 PM
I actually have a very steady group, and may gain an additional player or 2 this Saturday. I feel that if you treat somebody in a way that makes them feel like they are a human being, they return the favor.

what you did is not much difference than this example " hey man, you got anything to drink" "Yeah dude.. I have tea and juice.. of course if you want water that fine as well." "Oh, i'll take a mountain dew"

I think when somebody is in your house, it is your rules they have to follow. I am allergic to cigarette smoke, hence a firm no smoking policy. Telling somebody to go outside I guess is your definition of 'ruder' even though I pay the bills and it is my house?

One generally knows the contents of one's fridge, almost everyone forgets rules from the giant tomes that come out regularly (WTF 2nd ed clocks in at about 319 pages). Pointing out an optional sidebar someone might not have seen is (imo) not rude. Insisting on it would have been.

Cluedrew
2016-09-10, 09:37 PM
I suppose my definition of a rules lawyer is someone who treats the law like a lawyer would treat the law in a case. That is twisting it to get every advantage out of it for their case. I suppose if they have a case were they want to improve the game, than it is fine. But all to often the are trying to get something selfish out of it.

Friv
2016-09-11, 12:30 PM
One generally knows the contents of one's fridge, almost everyone forgets rules from the giant tomes that come out regularly (WTF 2nd ed clocks in at about 319 pages). Pointing out an optional sidebar someone might not have seen is (imo) not rude. Insisting on it would have been.

Does one? I frequently lose track of the contents of my fridge.

Thrudd
2016-09-11, 12:36 PM
Does one? I frequently lose track of the contents of my fridge.

Then you may benefit from a fridge lawyer in your group.

Though I'm guessing they'd be more of a fridge accountant.

You "Everyone gets another drink!"
Everyone: "yay!"
Fridge lawyer:"uh, sir? Sorry to say, you're down to only 1 Dr Pepper and the Beer fund has been completely wiped out. I've warned you about these drink spending practices..."

TheFamilarRaven
2016-09-11, 03:05 PM
Fridge lawyer:"uh, sir? Sorry to say, you're down to only 1 Dr Pepper and the Beer fund has been completely wiped out. I've warned you about these drink spending practices..."

"How dare you fridge lawyer in my house! Get out! I can't believe how rude you are!

Telonius
2016-09-13, 01:21 PM
The clearest example of rules lawyering I can think of actually pre-dates D&D.


Madame Mim: Now, first of all, if you don't mind, I'll make the rules.
Archimedes the Owl: Rules indeed! G'ha-ha-ha! Why, she only wants rules so she can break 'em.
Madame Mim: I'll take care of you later, feather-brain. Now, Rule One: No mineral or vegetable, only animals. Rule Two: No make-believe things like, uh, oh, pink dragons and stuff. Now, Rule Three: No disappearing.
Merlin: Rule Four: No cheating.

[They both cast Shapechange. Mim changes into a purple dragon]

Merlin: Now, now, Mim, Mim, no... no dragons, remember?
Madame Mim: Did I say no purple dragons? Did I?

Jay R
2016-09-13, 04:25 PM
Don't look for an exact definition. There isn't one.

"Rules lawyer" is not a well-defined term. It's used to describe a level of playing the rules that the speaker thinks hurts the game, and is therefore based on that person's view of what hurts the game.

nedz
2016-09-13, 06:17 PM
Don't look for an exact definition. There isn't one.

"Rules lawyer" is not a well-defined term. It's used to describe a level of playing the rules that the speaker thinks hurts the game, and is therefore based on that person's view of what hurts the game.

In other words you think it's just a pejorative attack ?

Talakeal is quite unfortunate in his choice of DMs — again.

Jay R
2016-09-13, 06:25 PM
In other words you think it's just a pejorative attack ?

No - just that there is no exact definition. It has a more-or-less meaningful definition, just a relative one. I'm a rules lawyer to you if I spend more time quoting rules than you do.

Rules lawyering is like driving on a one-lane country road. Anybody slower than me is a slug, anybody faster than me is a maniac.


Talakeal is quite unfortunate in his choice of DMs — again.

Seems like it.

dascarletm
2016-09-13, 06:29 PM
Well, it's certainly not "knowing the rules," I can tell you that much.

I don't know that there's a standard definition, but the key features are probably "argues with the DM," "holds up the game," and "advocates rules over common sense." The key is I think the negative association-- knowing rules isn't being a rules lawyer, but arguing about them is. It's not about exploiting so much as obnoxiously enforcing them.


Then you may benefit from a fridge lawyer in your group.

Though I'm guessing they'd be more of a fridge accountant.

You "Everyone gets another drink!"
Everyone: "yay!"
Fridge lawyer:"uh, sir? Sorry to say, you're down to only 1 Dr Pepper and the Beer fund has been completely wiped out. I've warned you about these drink spending practices..."

Isn't that more in the fridge accountant territory?

I imagine a fridge lawyer would say:

Sorry Fred, but the Steve said we were allowed two beverages, taking a string cheese would be against policy. We could appeal for a ruling on snacks, but I don't think you want to get tied up in litigation. :smalltongue:

EDIT:


No - just that there is no exact definition. It has a more-or-less meaningful definition, just a relative one. I'm a rules lawyer to you if I spend more time quoting rules than you do.

Rules lawyering is like driving on a one-lane country road. Anybody slower than me is a slug, anybody faster than me is a maniac.



Seems like it.

I don't think everyone sees it as an offence. My play group uses the term to describe someone (that isn't the DM) who argues or corrects others using their knowledge of the game rules. This may or may not be disruptive.

AMFV
2016-09-13, 07:33 PM
I don't think everyone sees it as an offence. My play group uses the term to describe someone (that isn't the DM) who argues or corrects others using their knowledge of the game rules. This may or may not be disruptive.

Well to be fair in the story presented it's pretty clearly being used as pejorative. I have personally known several people who wore their status as supposed "Rules Lawyers" like a badge of honor. This is pretty system dependent and seemed to be at it's height in 3.5 days for some rason.

Jay R
2016-09-13, 08:32 PM
I don't think everyone sees it as an offence. My play group uses the term to describe someone (that isn't the DM) who argues or corrects others using their knowledge of the game rules. This may or may not be disruptive.

That's why I said it wasn't well defined. Also why I said it wasn't necessarily a pejorative, and certainly not "just a pejorative attack". It's (usually) somebody more obsessive about the rules than the speaker is, or more obsessive than the group average is. That's a descriptive, and relative. Whether you think it's a pejorative depends on how you think about that behavior, but it's primarily a description of the behavior, not (necessarily) a negative evaluation of it.

Âmesang
2016-09-13, 10:26 PM
Out of stupid curiosity, how many house rules does it take to go from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder? :smalltongue:

GungHo
2016-09-14, 01:25 PM
I don't think everyone sees it as an offence. My play group uses the term to describe someone (that isn't the DM) who argues or corrects others using their knowledge of the game rules. This may or may not be disruptive.
I'm on the "depends" fence. I have played and DMed for years, from D&D all the way to Pathfinder (4E didn't work, and we haven't done much with 5), Exalted, O & NWoD, FFG W40k, Star Wars D6 & SAGA & FFG, Shadowrun... and there's sometimes things I just forget or jumble up. I'm old and feeble now. I don't take offense to genuine help. However, I do take offense if someone starts trying to put one over on me or if they're being jerks about it. Be smart... not a smart*@#. And, if you're challenged ethically, please don't bother. We're cops and auditors.

Zanos
2016-09-16, 04:50 AM
In other words you think it's just a pejorative attack?
Rules Lawyering is almost never used in a positive or neutral capacity, in my experience. I know one DM who uses it to address me in a positive/neutral fashion, but that's because 3.5 is massive enough that between 3 or 4 people who've been playing it for years, one out of us remembers some obscure rule that suddenly becomes relevant. And that DM is the exception.

What he did wasn't Lawyering under any definition I've ever seen used before, though. I've read some of Talakeal's other threads. Or just opening posts, really, because they make me sick after too long. One must wonder if this is all the same terrible GM/DM/ST, or if he is plagued by unnatural bad luck. Has he considered lighting some sage, and perhaps sprinkling holy water on his dice?