PDA

View Full Version : Why do rule lawyers have a bad reputation?



Trandir
2019-10-09, 04:40 PM
I mean the players that want to play by the rules or that when something is done incorrectly they present what the correct way should be for the best or the worst.

Not those that tryes to exploit loopholes to break the game.

Not those that uses obscure source books and pretend to be ruled as written without bringing it up beforehead to the GM.

Not those that correct every rule that would give a lesser disadvantage or bigger advantage when ruled correctly but will not bring it up when something "illegal" benefit them.


Bonus: can a GM be a rule lawyer?

Edit: it seems that what I thought a rule lawyer should be is foundamentally different from what that title actually refers to. A rule lawyer is actually a player that has a toxic behaviour linked to the rules in some way.

Lord Raziere
2019-10-09, 04:46 PM
I mean the players that want to play by the rules or that when something is done incorrectly they present what the correct way should be for the best or the worst.

Not those that tryes to exploit loopholes to break the game.

Not those that uses obscure source books and pretend to be ruled as written without bringing it up beforehead to the GM.

Not those that correct every rule that would give a lesser disadvantage or bigger advantage when ruled correctly but will not bring it up when something "illegal" benefit them.


Bonus: can a GM be a rule lawyer?

They have a bad reputation precisely because of all those other definitions you just stated that you don't mean when you use it.

words, surprisingly have different interpretations and thus used differently by other people for different things and thus can often be used negatively as well as positively. because have different viewpoints on that word and the concepts and definitions behind those words.

Rynjin
2019-10-09, 04:46 PM
I think the main reason rules lawyers get a bad rep from certain people is one of two things, depending on the table:

1.) They aren't really rules lawyers; they "lawyer up" when it would get them a benefit, and stay quiet when it would not.

2.) They're at the table of a GM who reeeeeeeaaalllly doesn't care about the rules and said GM talks smack about them on the forums (sometimes deservedly, if they continue to press the issue to everyone else' frustration instead of just bowing out of the game due to incompatible playstyles).

IME people tend to like "real" rules lawyers, who just point out what the rules are and make sure everything's above board. I like to play as close to RAW as possible on a lot of things, so I point out when something is out of whack...notably as I alluded to above, even when it would result in a disadvantage for myself (even the death of my character on one occasion).

Cluedrew
2019-10-09, 04:56 PM
I'm going to go with: traditionally those "not"s you listed make you not a rules lawyer. A rules lawyer often isn't just knowing the rules well and/or playing by the book. Often it does mean exactly those who exploit the rules and exploitation is usually frowed upon.

Jay R
2019-10-09, 07:07 PM
I mean the players that want to play by the rules...

These people do not have a bad reputation, and are not called rules lawyers.


... or that when something is done incorrectly they present what the correct way should be for the best or the worst.

This is not well-defined. People who do this well and politely do not have a bad reputation, and are not called rules lawyers. People who do it badly and insultingly are called rules lawyers, and have a bad reputation.


Not those that tryes to exploit loopholes to break the game.

Not those that uses obscure source books and pretend to be ruled as written without bringing it up beforehead to the GM.

Not those that correct every rule that would give a lesser disadvantage or bigger advantage when ruled correctly but will not bring it up when something "illegal" benefit them.

These people are called rule lawyers, and you've made it clear why they have a bad reputation.


Bonus: can a GM be a rule lawyer?

If the GM is consistent and fair with the rules, then he or she is not called a rules lawyer, and does not have a bad reputation. If the GM is playing games with the rules to be unfair, then he is called a rules lawyer, and has a bad reputation.

Duff
2019-10-09, 07:11 PM
I'm going to go with: traditionally those "not"s you listed make you not a rules lawyer. A rules lawyer often isn't just knowing the rules well and/or playing by the book. Often it does mean exactly those who exploit the rules and exploitation is usually frowned upon.
This
Another annoying behavior which gets called "rules lawyering" is spending too* much time arguing about how the rule should be interpreted, how to parse the paragraph, how different rules interact etc. GMs can be guilty of this - a player and GM spend an hour of game time discussing with how the rule works while the rest of the table are bored. Note the only "wrong" here would be a GM failing to balance the interests of the table


*Actual amount which counts as too much varies from table to table

Droid Tony
2019-10-09, 07:51 PM
The three I can think of:

1.The Rule Lawyer is not coming over to play the same game as everyone else. They are there to play vs. the DM and try to ''one up" the DM on the rules. The other players will be trying to slay a dragon in the game....but the rules lawyer is just wating to ''gottha" the DM.

2.Rules Lawyers stop the game. All too often the game will stop so the player and DM can talk and argue. At worst the game will be ruined for the whole night. Even once they stop, they will still likely both be upset...or worse.

3.The lawyer part. It's not about the rules....it's about rule interpretation.

Knaight
2019-10-09, 09:19 PM
It essentially tends to come down to people having a limited tolerance for pedantry in the service of being technically correct - and while nerds in general usually strike a balance that involves a pretty high tolerance Rules Lawyers specifically exceed that, as defined by whoever is using the term. It's one of those "anyone who drives faster than me is reckless, anyone who drives slower than me is overly cautious" situations.

CharonsHelper
2019-10-09, 09:27 PM
Puffin Forest used to have a video up where he described what he termed as Rules Lawyer vs Rules Traditionalist. Unfortunately, it looks like he took it down.

Basically the idea is:

The Rules Traditionalist just knows the rules and wants everyone to play by them because he thinks that's the most fun for everyone. They are likely even okay with permanent house-rules if told beforehand and an explanation given.

The Rules Lawyer just wants stuff for themselves. They abuse the rules and argue over every possible interpretation in their character's benefit, even if they would totally play the other way if THAT was to their benefit.

By this definition the Rules Lawyer sucks, while the Rules Traditionalist is generally handy to have around, though he might not mesh with every table.

Composer99
2019-10-09, 09:55 PM
I mean the players that want to play by the rules or that when something is done incorrectly they present what the correct way should be for the best or the worst.

There's nothing wrong with either of those behaviours in and of themselves. Engaging in them does not automatically make someone a "rules lawyer".

I would say that there's a certain connotation of argumentativeness, and of pedantic hair-splitting and word-parsing, embedded in the term "rules lawyer". One is a "rules lawyer" when one wastes too much of other players' time (including the GM as one of the other players) arguing over the rules, whether one is arguing about how they should be parsed/interpreted/observed, or whether one is arguing about whether or not they are being followed or breached, or whether the GM (if there is one) should be enforcing them more strictly/in a different way/ whatever. How much time qualifies as too much varies from table to table, as others have already said.

"Rules lawyering", as far as I can see, is rather like taking the kind of arguments one sees on this board about RAW, which at least have the virtue of being contained to willing participants, and forcing people to sit through them at the game table.

The behaviours you have cited become "rules lawyering" when they cease to be helpful and instead become argumentative, when they cease to be of assistance in improving the game experience and instead become a power struggle with the GM or other players, when they cease to be brief and instead become protracted.


Not those that tryes to exploit loopholes to break the game.

Not those that uses obscure source books and pretend to be ruled as written without bringing it up beforehead to the GM.

Not those that correct every rule that would give a lesser disadvantage or bigger advantage when ruled correctly but will not bring it up when something "illegal" benefit them.

Those can be the behaviours of "rules lawyers", but I think they are more up the alley of what might be characterised as "munchkins", insofar as they are behaviours meant specifically to benefit them personally, as it were. One can be a "rules lawyer" without exploiting loopholes.


Bonus: can a GM be a rule lawyer?

Yes, and no.

No, because the GM is typically the final arbiter on how the rules work at any gaming table at which they are acting in that capacity, which means that their interpretation or modification of rules is how the rules work at their table.

Yes, because there's nothing stopping GMs from being argumentative or pedantic, or wasting time at the table initiating or enabling arguments about the rules when they should be keeping the game on track.

Xuc Xac
2019-10-10, 12:16 AM
Someone who knows the rules and wants them applied fairly isn't a lawyer. That's a judge. Lawyers want to use the rules that benefit them (even if it means twisting the phrasing to enforce a disingenuous RAW interpretation in spite of a clear RAI reading of the "ambiguous" wording) and keep quiet about rules that go against them (or argue against those rules if they come up).

Lawyers are good in the justice system because there are lawyers on both sides with a judge in the middle. Rules lawyers at a game aren't good because there's usually just one of them trying to disrupt the game to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Mordaedil
2019-10-10, 01:53 AM
In my experience, the only way you get called a rules lawyer is if you insist on a rule more than just once. There's always ways around being called a rules lawyer while still being concerned about the rules not being followed.

If the DM makes a call that contradicts your memory of how the rule works, you can start it as a question instead "is that how it works?" and follow it up with "are you sure?" if he says yes. If he doesn't look it up, then you just kinda have to accept it as a custom ruling for the time being.

Ask for clarification if there's a rule you are unsure of, because you observe it being treated differently (maybe he allows potions as a bonus action and you aren't clear why that lich healed from a healing potion)

Basically, work with the DM, don't against the DM and you'll avoid being called out on being a rules lawyer, while still being one.

Talakeal
2019-10-10, 02:14 AM
Even by the first definition, you can easilly disrupt the game by refusing to let something go when the DM just wants to handwaive something and get on with the game. Just because you are technically correct doesn't mean anyone wants to argue about every last modifier or about how player B is technically cheating when the DM let epic skill focus count as regular skill focus for prestige class requirements.


And yeah, the DM is always fully capable of all of the negative behaviors the player rules lawyers exhibit.

King of Nowhere
2019-10-10, 04:44 AM
The three I can think of:

2.Rules Lawyers stop the game. All too often the game will stop so the player and DM can talk and argue. At worst the game will be ruined for the whole night. Even once they stop, they will still likely both be upset...or worse.

3.The lawyer part. It's not about the rules....it's about rule interpretation.

This. Even for benign examples.

It's good that someone knows the rules and can referee them.
But if the whole session devolves into a rules debate, it's taking it too far.
And sometimes both as dm or player you may want to handwave stuff for simplicity.

When i dm, if it takes more than 5 minutes to figure out a rule interaction, i adjudicate it roughly and move on. The lawyer is the guy who'll insist on figuring out exactly every detail.

Kurald Galain
2019-10-10, 05:10 AM
I mean the players that want to play by the rules or that when something is done incorrectly they present what the correct way should be for the best or the worst.

Rules are occasionally ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Yes, even in core.

It is not uncommon for players that "play by the rules" to pick the interpretation that makes their character more powerful. Places like the now-defunct WOTC forums tended to take the interpretation that makes PCs stronger, and enshrine it as the One True RAW.

...but interpretation is the DM's job, and he's just not always going to pick that interpretation; e.g. because it makes no sense, or it conflicts with the story, or it's unfair to the other characters. And lawyering about that is just annoying. RAW doesn't mean RAMMCMP.

Dimers
2019-10-10, 05:34 AM
Presentation matters, too. I'm sure you can imagine a humorless and nasal "Well, actually, what it technically says is ..." And that delivery will get you glares even when it has valid info. It's got a rather 'I'm right and you're wrong' vibe. Who needs more of that in their life?

So, presentation might weigh in on why some people are derided for rules lawyering.

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-10, 08:10 AM
In my experience it boils down to this.

The role players who really get the intricacies of the rules fall into is either Friend of the court Vs Council for the defence.

The former knows the rules well and, when asked, can explain how something works or find obscure rules. Love these guys, even knew one at Uni who could do Turn Undead off the top of his head. Will also interject if they see what might be a mistake in the offing by either the DM or another player, such as "Detect Magic won't let you find where they stored the alchemist's fire, alchemist's fire isn't magical" or "They're playing an Assamar, Charm Person won't work as they aren't humanoid" or even "How did the NPC die of level drain when I case Death Ward on them?" They act as a neutral rules expert, raise valid points and, more importantly, if they are over-ruled they accept it and move on. They might not like it, but they respect Rule 0.

Council for the defence has a stake in the decision. Their monk is bound and gagged but by golly they are going to argue that they get their attacks of opportunity by citing a combination of the rules for monk's unarmed attacks and the combat reflexes feat, even if it makes no sense or the rules are clearly not meant to be taken that way. These guys suck. They are also, TBH, most of us at one time or another. They get bad however when they are doing it at every opportunity to gain every little edge. They say things like "But this other class's similar ability states it does this, so clearly mine does too" or "No, you're wrong it can't do that because".

False God
2019-10-10, 08:30 AM
Like some disreputable lawyers IRL, "Rules Lawyers" enjoy arguing technicalities. Usually on the angle that the rules operate in their favor and against the favor of the DM. Most DMs and other party members don't have the time or the patience and sometimes lack the knowledge and linguistic skill to engage in these arguments. They take time away from the group and the game as a whole to focus on a single player trying to get an often minor technical benefit. They often "win" simply because the DM wants to get back to playing, and really that's the problem: they're holding up the game so that they can get into an argument.

Jay R
2019-10-10, 08:35 AM
People who know the exact rule when you need it, and bring it up when it’s needed, whether it’s good or bad for their characters, are very good to have at the table. They are considered knowledgeable, but nobody calls them rules lawyer (at least where I play).

The players who have a few obscure rules stored up and weaponized, ready to bring them out for personal gain, are called rules lawyers.

The crucial difference is whether they use the rules for fairness or for advantage.

Kurald Galain
2019-10-10, 08:54 AM
They get bad however when they are doing it at every opportunity to gain every little edge. They say things like "But this other class's similar ability states it does this, so clearly mine does too" or "No, you're wrong it can't do that because".

This is why I love Paranoia, the RPG with a hard rule that this behavior gets your character summarily executed. :smallcool:

Slipperychicken
2019-10-12, 04:36 AM
As a recovering rules-lawyer, the bad reputation is because of:

Disrupting sessions, often in the middle of the action
Flaunting a clear sense of superiority over other players in a low-stakes cooperative social hobby like roleplaying
Making often-incorrect presumptions about things the GM has done, or intends to do
Only flaunting detailed rules-knowledge to benefit themselves, not bringing it up when it might disadvantage them
Arguing to force outcomes in the game, effectively exceeding the normal influence of a player and intruding on the GM's duties


For those who happen to be rules-lawyers and want to help without annoying their entire group, here are some guidelines

Do not interrupt people mid-sentence, ever
Always defer to your GM mid-session. If he knows the "correct" rule but wants to rule otherwise, don't fight him mid-session
Be impartial. Bring up the rules even when it's bad for you in-game
If you have a litany of complaints or suggestions, or want to discuss an in-depth rules matter, bring it to your GM or other players outside of sessions
Instead of trying to force an outcome ("that's an instakill by RAW"), phrase it more like a question or suggestion to your GM ("is that an instakill? it looks like she took more than double her max hp from that attack")
Don't excessively chide people for not knowing super-detailed stuff. If they don't know how to calculate their attack bonus or something, you can casually roast them a little. Beyond the basics however, understand that people have lives and that it's okay to not spend hours every day reading game rules.
Try not to be sanctimonious or over-serious. You're not fighting a $200 traffic violation, you're playing a magic elf-game

Lapak
2019-10-12, 07:14 AM
This is why I love Paranoia, the RPG with a hard rule that this behavior gets your character summarily executed. :smallcool:
Sadly, Citizen, knowing that rules-lawyering is an executable offense is itself an executable offense. Please report to the nearest Termination Station immediately.

EggKookoo
2019-10-12, 12:57 PM
I love it when one of my players is well versed in the rules. Saves me the trouble of having to look anything up. :smallsmile:

Spore
2019-10-13, 09:43 PM
Rules lawyer implies that the rules are like a law that cannot be broken. Many people including me feel that rules can safely be ignored if people are having fun. We had a rules enthusiast in our group that assumed sticking with the rules ensured more fairness at the table.

But he also played a Pathfinder Fighter, as some form of self therapy I figured. Because there is nothing fair about playing a midlevel trip maneuver fighter that cannot trip flying enemies when your teammate is an evil cleric that can summon fiendish monsters that do your schtick better than you. (His relative weakness was compensated by another botched build and my character heavily doing buffs).

In an environment where the cleric, oracle and now even the flipping rogue can fly, why can't the fighter use his polearm to vault up a 30 ft. building? Yes, the rules say he can't but how is he going to get up the building without waiting for another turn for the "magical air uber" to show up.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-13, 11:29 PM
Why do lawyers have a bad reputation? I mean, Justice League literally had an alien society make a joke about having a "lawyer problem" that was "solved" by having lawyers suffer the same penalty as their clients if they lost a case. Of course, IRL, lawyers are an incredibly important part of our society, and becoming a judge is pretty much dependent on being a lawyer first. Most legislators and government executives have legal training as well (as one would expect for a position that requires drafting or enforcing laws). Our society literally could not function if we did as Shakespeare's **** the Butcher advocates. But there are dark sides to the profession.

Lawyers, somewhat like medical doctors and dentists, almost always only see clients when something has gone wrong. Like police officers, many lawyers only see people (proverbially) "on the worst day(s) of their lives." That inherently colors one's perception of lawyers. It's sort of like how hospitals and the "antiseptic smell" they have are associated with death. Even though lots and lots of people go to hospitals to be healed, it's an incontrovertible fact that a lot of death happens in hospitals too, so hospitals can be inherently unsettling or unpleasant even when there's nothing actually wrong.

Lawyers also have the problem that, in a meaningful sense, 50% of all clients will hate both legal representatives in a case (the parties who lose), and arguably the other 50% will hate at least one of the legal representatives (the party who wins--you're not likely to like your opponent's lawyers!) So if we make the not-entirely-accurate but relatively reasonable assumption that there is one (perhaps lead) lawyer for each side, then 50% of the clients will hate 1 lawyer and 50% will hate 2 lawyers--that's (0.5+1)/2 = 75% of all lawyers hated by the clients on the net, which isn't great.

Finally--and I think this is the most relevant sense for the term "rules lawyer"--lawyers have an unfair, but not entirely unfounded, reputation for twisting law and truth to suit their needs. We need lawyers to vigorously defend their clients' interests, that's a vital part of how our justice system works. But as a consequence, that means we need to have lawyers vigorously defending clients who are, if not obviously guilty, then at least clients whose guilt is extremely likely. And we need lawyers vigorously prosecuting, even when guilt seems very unlikely or superficial evidence seems to preclude guilt, because crime (and liability etc. for non-criminal law cases) is a murky business for everyone involved. This means doing things like advancing the most favorable view of the evidence to your client, advocating the most lenient (or most punitive, when relevant) interpretation of the law, and generally REALLY pushing for things, even when the lawyer herself/himself personally suspects their client is guilty.

Turning now to the RPG-specific term "rules lawyer," there's a number of implied characteristics within that are generally held to be negative. For example, rules lawyers are usually considered to be:
- Officious: they annoy their fellow players with assertions of authority and control.
- Pretentious: their interference in the process of play connotes that their knowledge is superior to others', implicitly in a derogatory way.
- Unscrupulous: as with the last paragraph above about lawyers, rules lawyers are often held to twist logic and the meaning of words in order to get the most favorable meaning out of every situation, no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent this becomes.
- Selfish: They only do their advocacy for themselves, and while they may not actively seek to hold back others, the term implies a willingness to do so if it means getting a more favorable personal result.
- Grasping: They comb through every obscure splat, sift through literal reams of text, for any advantage. Others lacking the time/energy/patience to do so often find the rules lawyer's behavior greedy, even predatory (more preciously, pleonectic, though that's a rather philosophical term).

So yeah. The term connotes that the person in question is being at least some subset of officious, pretentious, unscrupulous, selfish, and/or grasping. Most people find all these characteristics at least somewhat negative. And many of these terms are simply borrowing, in whole or in part, from the wider cultural perspective that actual lawyers are like this, regardless of whether that is true. (In my personal experience, it is not true, I know several lawyers who are excellent and upstanding people; but lawyers are still just as human as everyone else, so it's a complicated issue.)

Edit: @slipperychicken Believe it or not, I wrote this post without reading yours at all! It's impressive how similar in both formatting and content our posts are. Guess I wasn't too far off the mark. :smalltongue:

Mutazoia
2019-10-14, 12:25 AM
In a nutshell: Rules Lawyers have a reputation for trying to over-rule the DM on rules interpretations, usually to their own advantage. Back Seat DM'ing as it were.

Ravens_cry
2019-10-14, 12:30 AM
Plus, they break the flow of the game. Nothing ruins pacing and excitement than spending 40 minutes (at least!) looking up and arguing the exact meaning of the possible typo on page 37 of the Tome of Marvellous Creatures and how it interacts with page 129 of the Game Referee's Compendium.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-14, 12:33 AM
Because some people are very protective of their ability to play the game wrong and get away with it.

Ravens_cry
2019-10-14, 12:36 AM
Because some people are very protective of their ability to play the game wrong and get away with it.
And what, pray tell, is ' playing the game wrong'? As long as everyone is having fun and things are consistent without favouritism, I don't see a problem with deviating in various ways from rules as written, or even intended if it suits the group better.

Slipperychicken
2019-10-14, 12:48 AM
Edit: @slipperychicken Believe it or not, I wrote this post without reading yours at all! It's impressive how similar in both formatting and content our posts are. Guess I wasn't too far off the mark. :smalltongue:

If it makes you feel better, I wouldn't have read yours either unless I saw my username in bold at the end. Cool posters like us are busy people, we don't have time to read. :smallcool:

The similarities are understandable. Rules-lawyering is a common and very one-sided issue, and experiences of it are almost identical, so people who are capable of articulating it will end up sounding pretty similar.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-14, 12:54 AM
And what, pray tell, is ' playing the game wrong'? As long as everyone is having fun and things are consistent without favouritism, I don't see a problem with deviating in various ways from rules as written, or even intended if it suits the group better.

Hey if you enjoy Calvinball then more power to ya, I guess.

Mordante
2019-10-14, 04:21 AM
I've recently started DMing a lvl16 DnD 3.5 party. While I have some general knowledge of the rules mostly I just wing it. Fake it till you make it. That is why I really appreciate it when I have some players that can correct me when I go overboard. I really need the help, especially when casting is concerned. Spells are relatively complicated for me. To be honest I think rules lawyers are relatively young players who aim to be the best/most powerful characters that they can be. While older players tend to be more rules relaxed aka as long as it fits the story line almost anything goes.

I try to avoid situations that are rules heavy and focus more on the roleplaying part with the occasional listen, spot, diplomacy checks. In an 3 hour session we might role two to three times. However next session I will surprise them with an annoyed green dragon, surprise will be relative since we have a divine oracle in the group. To test the combat capabilities of the group. Many players switched characters.

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-14, 07:03 AM
And what, pray tell, is ' playing the game wrong'? As long as everyone is having fun and things are consistent without favouritism, I don't see a problem with deviating in various ways from rules as written, or even intended if it suits the group better.It tends to upset the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans to find they don't work because the DM has decided to change things, particularly if they weren't told about the change beforehand.

EggKookoo
2019-10-14, 07:13 AM
It tends to upset the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans to find they don't work because the DM has decided to change things, particularly if they weren't told about the change beforehand.

A good DM will tell their players about any special changes to the setting before the game starts. If I've removed elves from my setting, I better tell you before you decide to roll up that elf PC.

At the same time, a good player shouldn't assume the DM won't make changes and probably shouldn't base their plans on things without confirming with the DM that they'll be valid in the upcoming adventure. If you plan on making a stealth-based PC in my game, make sure you ask about and understand any modifications to the stealth rules I may have made.

Slipperychicken
2019-10-14, 12:43 PM
It tends to upset the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans to find they don't work because the DM has decided to change things, particularly if they weren't told about the change beforehand.

If players have some kind of understandable misconception, or the GM failed to communicate something important out, then the way to go is to offer a retcon or some other recompense.

But if a player wants to make any kind of deep plan, he should consult with his GM. The GM can work out how it would resolve, and can say whether the PC would know things like whether it can't possibly work and if there's an obvious way to make it more effective.

False God
2019-10-14, 01:00 PM
It's important to distinguish "I brought Ralph the Elf Slayer to the game whose goal in life is genocide of the elves." only to find out there are no elves; and "I want to do this thing that we all just assumed worked as written." only to find out the DM has some unique ideas on how that should work. We can't reasonably expect the players to ask the DM if every rule in the book works as written, and since the players aren't in charge of the rules, the onus is on the DM to communicate rules changes to the players beforehand, especially if they are fundamental elements of gameplay.

Ravens_cry
2019-10-14, 01:19 PM
It tends to upset the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans to find they don't work because the DM has decided to change things, particularly if they weren't told about the change beforehand.
That's its own problem, a lack of consistency, which I did, in fact, find to be a problem.

EggKookoo
2019-10-14, 01:26 PM
It's important to distinguish "I brought Ralph the Elf Slayer to the game whose goal in life is genocide of the elves." only to find out there are no elves; and "I want to do this thing that we all just assumed worked as written." only to find out the DM has some unique ideas on how that should work. We can't reasonably expect the players to ask the DM if every rule in the book works as written, and since the players aren't in charge of the rules, the onus is on the DM to communicate rules changes to the players beforehand, especially if they are fundamental elements of gameplay.

Communication goes both ways, of course.

But I tend to agree that the weight of the responsibility is on the DM to make sure the players know about any changes to the setting or basic assumptions of the game. At the same time, if a player has a specific thing they're hooking their PC on, it can't hurt to just double check that that thing hasn't been amputated.

Gnoman
2019-10-14, 01:44 PM
It tends to upset the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans to find they don't work because the DM has decided to change things, particularly if they weren't told about the change beforehand.

Or, equally likely, the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans based on a specific interpretation of a rule only to have the DM interpret it a different way. I had a player argue with me for half an hour because I wouldn't allow his big, unexplained, multi-step (each step of which seemed odd, but not so odd as to raise suspicion) plan to work on the grounds that the Sunlight spell doesn't actually create sunlight because nothing in the spell description says it does. He assumed, based on the name, that the light made by the spell would function exactly like the light from the sun, including vaporizing vampires.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-14, 01:47 PM
Or, equally likely, the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans based on a specific interpretation of a rule only to have the DM interpret it a different way. I had a player argue with me for half an hour because I wouldn't allow his big, unexplained, multi-step (each step of which seemed odd, but not so odd as to raise suspicion) plan to work on the grounds that the Sunlight spell doesn't actually create sunlight because nothing in the spell description says it does. He assumed, based on the name, that the light made by the spell would function exactly like the light from the sun, including vaporizing vampires.

I really do suggest just cutting to the chase if a player is clearly putting together some elaborate scheme one step at a time and asking "what is the intent of all of this?".

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-14, 02:52 PM
Or, equally likely, the player who took time and effort to craft careful strategies or delicate plans based on a specific interpretation of a rule only to have the DM interpret it a different way. I had a player argue with me for half an hour because I wouldn't allow his big, unexplained, multi-step (each step of which seemed odd, but not so odd as to raise suspicion) plan to work on the grounds that the Sunlight spell doesn't actually create sunlight because nothing in the spell description says it does. He assumed, based on the name, that the light made by the spell would function exactly like the light from the sun, including vaporizing vampires.Of course this can happen, and when it does it can be annoying BUT the player should respect the DM's rulings. I was specifically addressing how one might be said to be "playing the game wrong" which alterning the rules without letting the player know certainly falls under (unless this is Paranoia of course).

For a more concrete example from my own group, in Exalted 2nd Edition there are a lot of charms intended for fighting wars under the Mass Combat system. Individuals, even might Solar heroes, are at a real disadvantage if forced to fight armies singlehanded, at least if they aren't statted for it. So a character in my group builds a millitary officer, buys her troups etc at character creation and is sure to mobalise them so she can keep up with the party as the Solar we are hunting is fleeing the city we are in (a little judicious collateral damage by the party made them want to take the fight away from civilians) and force them to fight an army to escape.

As we sight the Nellens Ralta coming over the hill with her spearmen the Storyteller says "well I don't really want to have to use the Mass Combat rules so..."

Now Ralta's player was a rules lawyer (you have to be to navigate Mass Combat) but that didn't make their annoyance less valid.

Fable Wright
2019-10-14, 03:11 PM
Puffin Forest had a good video on this. He identifies a divide between two groups: rules traditionalists and rules lawyers. The former are encyclopedias that fill in whenever there's a gap, and those range between useful and necessary for a group to function depending on system complexity. Most people on the forums fall into this category.

The other group are rules lawyers, who take any and all disfavorable rulings handed down to them by the judge and appeal, discredit, or maneuver around precedent to obtain a victory in court. Exactly what a client needs to win a case that could decide their entire future. Entirely unnecessary in a game to be had in free time for fun.

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-15, 01:52 AM
Puffin Forest had a good video on this.I'm aware of the video, my own terminology is Friend of the court and council for the defence.

Lvl 2 Expert
2019-10-15, 01:14 PM
The GM is a rules judge.

And sometimes rules jury and rules executioner.

denthor
2019-10-15, 01:26 PM
Here is an example.

6th level spell flesh to stone.

How can this be broken?

My DM does not like and house rules break enchantment a 5th level spell does not work. Even when the break enchantment spell says specifically that it will. My DM feels I am rules lawyering an answer.

I say all I did was pick a spell that most players think is trash and used it effectively to make the people turned to stone by a Basilisk back to flesh. I looted those that missed the saving throw.

He always say his players only want sheep in a pen with magic items around their neck to plunder. He did not like it when I took the right spell to plunder the sheep(stone statues).

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-15, 02:47 PM
I looted those that missed the saving throw.

He always say his players only want sheep in a pen with magic items around their neck to plunder. He did not like it when I took the right spell to plunder the sheep(stone statues).Must, resist, urge, to...

Flesh to stone also turns all carried gear to stone, making me wonder how on earth you were able to plunder them?

Sorry but it can be painful to hold those in :smalltongue:

In all seriousness that comment might have started an actual rules lawyer debate (re item saves and the fact that the spell targets the creature BUT states is effects their gear) but what you said isn't rules lawyering by any sane definition. It does rather devalue Stone to Flesh apart from dealing the Flesh to Stone (which Break Enchantment DOESN'T work on being 6th level) and fringe golem hunting roles however. Fringe golem hunting roles that are a themselves an endless pit of rules lawyerness due to one really dumb line in Stone to Flesh mind you...

ezekielraiden
2019-10-15, 08:13 PM
Must, resist, urge, to...

Flesh to stone also turns all carried gear to stone, making me wonder how on earth you were able to plunder them?

Sorry but it can be painful to hold those in :smalltongue:

In all seriousness that comment might have started an actual rules lawyer debate (re item saves and the fact that the spell targets the creature BUT states is effects their gear) but what you said isn't rules lawyering by any sane definition. It does rather devalue Stone to Flesh apart from dealing the Flesh to Stone (which Break Enchantment DOESN'T work on being 6th level) and fringe golem hunting roles however. Fringe golem hunting roles that are a themselves an endless pit of rules lawyerness due to one really dumb line in Stone to Flesh mind you...

Note that they're talking about a basilisk-inflicted petrify, which is not a higher-than-5th-level spell. Of course, whether a basilisk's petrifying gaze allows you to loot the stone bodies is a separate question.

denthor
2019-10-15, 08:52 PM
Note that they're talking about a basilisk-inflicted petrify, which is not a higher-than-5th-level spell. Of course, whether a basilisk's petrifying gaze allows you to loot the stone bodies is a separate question.


Must, resist, urge, to...

Flesh to stone also turns all carried gear to stone, making me wonder how on earth you were able to plunder them?

Sorry but it can be painful to hold those in :smalltongue:

In all seriousness that comment might have started an actual rules lawyer debate (re item saves and the fact that the spell targets the creature BUT states is effects their gear) but what you said isn't rules lawyering by any sane definition. It does rather devalue Stone to Flesh apart from dealing the Flesh to Stone (which Break Enchantment DOESN'T work on being 6th level) and fringe golem hunting roles however. Fringe golem hunting roles that are a themselves an endless pit of rules lawyerness due to one really dumb line in Stone to Flesh mind you...

If you read break enchantment it turns them back to flesh just like stone to flesh would. They blow the saving throw the flesh becomes (some sort of gooey mess). The magic items and normal gear are not flesh they survive metal does care for time. My 1/2 orc wizard does not mind getting her hands dirty searching through the gooey mess for the items she seeks.

That is how you loot stone statues with that spell. They die I take there stuff.

Stone flesh and flesh to stone are 1 round spells break enchantment is a full 10 round spell.

Kurald Galain
2019-10-16, 02:10 AM
Are people seriously rules lawyering in this thread? :smallbiggrin:

Lvl 2 Expert
2019-10-16, 04:31 AM
Are people seriously rules lawyering in this thread? :smallbiggrin:

No. We're just setting the record straight.

Stop oppressing my people!

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-16, 08:12 AM
If you read break enchantment it turns them back to flesh just like stone to flesh would.No, it just says they are free from the effect. In this case Stone to Flesh is worse as it can kill people. The casting time is better I admit, as is the lack of a caster level check, but all in all Break enchantment is a better way to deal with it if you can. 100% on my top 10 spells to have as scrolls in the emergency kit.

Before anyone goes off, I might ask, how much is this back and forth annoying you? You see if this was a game and this conversation was happening I am sure the various players might be irritated and just want to get de-stoned already, because stoned characters are no fun to play. Call it a demonstration :smallsmile:. Incidentally this has reminded me of another reason why Rules Lawyers can be unpopular.

DM "OK, so only the party rogue is still active but he has disarmed the "Flesh to Stone trap" you all kept setting off."

Rogue player "OK, well I head out of the dungeon with what loot we have to see if I can find anyone who knows Stone to Flesh for some reason."

Wizard player "I've got that in my spellbook. I found a scroll a few sessions ago, remember"

Rogue player "But you are a statue."

Wizard player "I have a scroll of Break enchantment in the party's panic kit. You have like, +20 UMD."

Rogue player "Well, not that high. But it won't work"

DM (confused and worried as the out he put in place is not being taken) "Why?"

Rogue player "I mean, its a bit meta-gamey to assume that old stonerobes there, anticipating the situation, explained what the spell would and wouldn't work on but unless you want me to waste the scroll. See Flesh to Stone is a level 6 spell, Break Enchantment has a max of level 5 spells for things you can't just dispel."

DM (realising he has to populate a town and work out why the half dozen slimes in nearby corridors won't come and errode the party in the meantime.) "Ah..."TLDR, other players often dislike it when Rules Lawyers follow rules or point out flaws the DM was unaware of or had forgotten.

Altheus
2019-10-16, 08:37 AM
Because they can be a right pain. I don't open the rulebook during play so anything I'm not sure about I will make a ruling on and move on with the action. If a player pipes up with "Well, actually......." it slows things down and I'm not willing to take the time to disrupt a session to look a rule up. I'll look it up afterwards or in a break and sort things out after that.

darkrose50
2019-10-16, 08:42 AM
If rules are vague, then someone can argue multiple end results. Rules were once (and are a little now in 5e) vague. A rules lawyer did not help you learn the rules because no one could really learn the rules. No one could read the rules and play the way those who wrote them played. Not having well defined rules can create circumstances where player selection expectations of character options do not meet the game rules (sometimes to a harsh degree).

Now if rules are clear and well written, then having a "rules lawyer" may be helpful. Having a rules lawyer about who can understand internally consistent rules could be helpful in learning the game, or in making a fair ruling. Having someone argue an opinion over how they think a poorly written ambiguous rule should be interoperated is much less useful than someone who understands well-written rules.

Having a lawyer about when the laws say "do good stuff" and "don't do bad stuff" is not all that helpful.

Having a lawyer about when the laws say "do not do X" and "you must do Y" may be quite helpful.

-----

As someone who has a high likelihood to choose my words for accuracy, and has the tendency to interpolate words literally, I can attest that people somewhat often do not choose their words accurately. I have on many occasion followed the dictionary definition of one or more directions given, only to find out that the words provided were not using the dictionary definition, but something close. Some ideas do not even have words. It is frustrating to search for an idea without a word.

For example we get ~60 to ~75 new insurance agents every year. My boss said "grab X, he sits next to you" . . . I checked the surrounding cubicles, and X was not there. He meant to say X sits somewhere near you. Someone writing rules might use next to, to mean near, and screw up everything.

For example at work we had a chart with three keywords for the same idea. This only confused customers and insurance agents alike. Imagine if there were three keywords for the same rule, and then the rule was updated, but only mentioned one keyword. This would be a situation where having a rules-lawyer about could be helpful, or annoying.

If by reading a spells range, and description the logical rational person would interoperate the target as "next to" as "near", then perhaps in another spell written by another author where the word "next to" could really mean "next to", and this would cause confusion. With loose language use we would need some sort of ruling, and it would cause confusion.

-----

Poorly or loosely written rules can drive logical folks mad, as there is no way to know how a character would actually work before making the character. I have had my fair share of characters that were less fun to play because I did not have time to read the rules before character creation, and/or the fluff did not match the crunch. Having a rules lawyer around who read the rules would be useful to check a character concept to see if it matched the rules.

I have also made characters who end up being much more effective then one would suspect. For one con I randomly made a character for a new game, and made a doctor. I had a better chances to hit the aliens with my space-gun, then those who selected combat classes. I was kicking-but. Now those who selected a combat class would expect to be the ones who would kick more-but, then the doctor, in combat. Expectations and results should somewhat match-up.

Telonius
2019-10-16, 08:50 AM
Why do rule lawyers have a bad reputation? I'd say, similar reasons to why lawyers in general do. They can be (stereotypically) abrasive, sneaky, overly concerned with the letter of the law, focused on winning an argument to the exclusion of other concerns, and can get very expensive (in terms of game time taken up). But much like real lawyers there are times where you very much want one in your corner.

darkrose50
2019-10-16, 09:03 AM
Back in the day a rules lawyer was an absurd argumentative person working off of OPINION.

Back in the day before fancified game designers and highfaluting inter-webs were runnin' amuck rules lawyers would argue rules when there was NO WAY to know what the RULES AS INTENDED were based on the RULES AS WRITTEN. Now we have better written rules, and better ways to find out how the RULES AS INTENDED to be used.

Back in the day the rules were a guideline, and the DM would interoperate them. Imagine having to ask your DM a bunch of questions over how things work at her table, because the rules as written were only a little helpful.

RPG's have progressed, and greatly corrected the issue to ensure that the RULES AS WRITTEN better match the RULES AS INTENDED. Basically we, as a community, learned from our past mistakes.

Back in the day each monster that would "swallow whole" would have its own rules listed. Each swallow whole was different for each monster, and this was sometimes confusing. Now monsters have the "swallow whole" keyword, and we have one rule-set for "swallow whole". Back in the day a DM might have used monster X to fight the PC's, but might have mistakenly used the rules for monster Y's swallow whole. The wrong monsters "swallow hole" ability might be considerably more powerful than the monster in the combat is intended to be.

I know that it would impact my fun if the wrong rule was used that resulted in my characters death. Removing (or lessening) the possibility for mistakes, like using the wrong monster's swallow whole, makes it less likely to get into arguments over rules, makes it less likely for people to have bad experiences, and makes it less likely for folks to give up on the hobby.

Good rules matter, because words matter.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-16, 09:38 AM
DM "OK, so only the party rogue is still active but he has disarmed the "Flesh to Stone trap" you all kept setting off."

Rogue player "OK, well I head out of the dungeon with what loot we have to see if I can find anyone who knows Stone to Flesh for some reason."

Wizard player "I've got that in my spellbook. I found a scroll a few sessions ago, remember"

Rogue player "But you are a statue."

Wizard player "I have a scroll of Break enchantment in the party's panic kit. You have like, +20 UMD."

Rogue player "Well, not that high. But it won't work"

DM (confused and worried as the out he put in place is not being taken) "Why?"

Rogue player "I mean, its a bit meta-gamey to assume that old stonerobes there, anticipating the situation, explained what the spell would and wouldn't work on but unless you want me to waste the scroll. See Flesh to Stone is a level 6 spell, Break Enchantment has a max of level 5 spells for things you can't just dispel."

DM (realising he has to populate a town and work out why the half dozen slimes in nearby corridors won't come and errode the party in the meantime.) "Ah..."TLDR, other players often dislike it when Rules Lawyers follow rules or point out flaws the DM was unaware of or had forgotten.

That sounds like an entirely reasonable interaction to me? Other than the DM trying to figure out why the party doesn't get dissolved, anyway. That's the rogue's job.

Evil DM Mark3
2019-10-16, 10:18 AM
That sounds like an entirely reasonable interaction to me? Other than the DM trying to figure out why the party doesn't get dissolved, anyway. That's the rogue's job.But the rogue rules lawyered the party into not being able to carry on! Bad player! (Also how could the rogue avert a hazard they are unaware of?)

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-16, 10:25 AM
But the rogue rules lawyered the party into not being able to carry on! Bad player! (Also how could the rogue avert a hazard they are unaware of?)

He can do some quick scouting around to make sure the party isn't in immediate danger if he ups and leaves. But really the solution to this problem was don't get everyone but one person in the party petrified in the first place. They've already almost lost the game and getting away from this without a TPK, or a bunch of deaths at the very least, should be challenging.