PDA

View Full Version : Are rule lawyers bad?



hencook
2019-10-24, 10:14 PM
So a friend of mine says rule lawyers are universally reviled. Which rule lawyers do you hate?

A) He instantly points out what you did wrong and demands you fix it.

B) As the above, except he understands that the DM has final word.

C) As the above, except he merely mentions it, and if nobody cares, he brings it up after the game.

Or don't answer the question above and just gimme your input on rule lawyers please. Personally I think some groups do well with a few rule lawyers. Some gamer groups don't need them at all. It simply depends on the group.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-10-24, 10:25 PM
All of those are fine. They only become a problem if the player is already a problem in other ways.

Kelb_Panthera
2019-10-24, 11:33 PM
If you're not gonna stick to the rules, why bother having them. DM gets final say and you should never substantially disrupt the game over it but there's nothing wrong with making sure the rules are being followed and calling out errors when you see them.

Xuc Xac
2019-10-25, 12:47 AM
If you're not gonna stick to the rules, why bother having them.

Yes, exactly. Some rules are stupid, so I'm happy to just throw them out.

NichG
2019-10-25, 01:44 AM
I would find A) to be unacceptable even to play at the same table with much less DM for. B) and C) are more fluid; generally I wouldn't have a problem with C), but case B) would depend on how much of a hair trigger they have and how much it ends up impacting the time spent at the table.

Ultimately, I want to game with a group of people who are playing the game for the experience that results, not for the fact that it was performed correctly. I'm willing to acknowledge that there are situations where the experience depends on consistency between how people thought things worked, and what ends up happening. However, it's important to me that if someone is pushing a point of contention with respect to the rules, it's because the point of contention actually created a meaningful difference in the experience, and not just because they can.

That is to say, I don't really want to play with someone whose actual motivation for play is to debate the rules, or who is not willing to stop for a moment and question 'Will this particular interjection actually improve everyone's experience?'. And someone whose quality of experience depends too strongly on the rules being followed to the letter is simply incompatible with things that are vitally important to my own quality of experience. If I end up reaching the conclusion that we can't enjoy the same game at the same time, better to be at different tables.

BWR
2019-10-25, 02:08 AM
There's nothing wrong with letting people know how the rules work. Sometimes a GM gets it wrong or is unsure of something and having it pointed out is helpful.

They are a problem when you have to keep telling them "no, that's not how we're doing it" and keep going "but the rules say ....", or when they actually wrong about their interpretation and keep insisting that they are right.

Khedrac
2019-10-25, 03:35 AM
Short answer: Not necessarily, but they can be.

Long answer - we just had this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600141-Why-do-rule-lawyers-have-a-bad-reputation) (at the time of posting it's the first thread on the next page).

Kurald Galain
2019-10-25, 06:18 AM
So a friend of mine says rule lawyers are universally reviled. Which rule lawyers do you hate?
Yeah, A is bad, B and C are ok. You don't demand that the DM fix anything, because of Rule Zero.

MoiMagnus
2019-10-25, 07:30 AM
So a friend of mine says rule lawyers are universally reviled. Which rule lawyers do you hate?

A) He instantly points out what you did wrong and demands you fix it.

B) As the above, except he understands that the DM has final word.

C) As the above, except he merely mentions it, and if nobody cares, he brings it up after the game.

Or don't answer the question above and just gimme your input on rule lawyers please. Personally I think some groups do well with a few rule lawyers. Some gamer groups don't need them at all. It simply depends on the group.

There is a difference between obvious mistakes, implicit DM ruling, or explicit DM ruling:

"- So the orc move here and attacks...
- Wait, there is a barrier in between, he shouldn't be able to do that!
- Oh, right, my bad, so the orc will instead ..."
=> This is fully Ok

"- So the orc move through the barrier, destroying it and attacks...
- Wait, the orc shouldn't be able to destroy the barrier without consuming its attack!"
=> A is bad. B is ok because it might still be a mistake from the DM. C is fully ok.

"- So the orc move through the barrier, destroying it with a strength and speed unnatural for a normal orc, and attacks immediately after that...
- Wait, the orc shouldn't be able to destroy the barrier without consuming its attack!"
=> A is bad. B is bad too because the DM is clearly willingly getting out of the rules here, arguing with rules is pointless. C is always ok, because I prefer having an honest discussion with players rather than having them accumulating frustration.

Willie the Duck
2019-10-25, 07:37 AM
So a friend of mine says rule lawyers are universally reviled.
...
Or don't answer the question above and just gimme your input on rule lawyers please. Personally I think some groups do well with a few rule lawyers. Some gamer groups don't need them at all. It simply depends on the group.

The concept that rules lawyers are universally reviled... and honestly you can swap out 'rules lawyer' with 'min-maxer,' 'power-gamer,' or any other number of made up terms to describe a certain player behavior style... is in no small part because you rarely get called such a thing until your behavior has reached the disruptive stage. There's a silent parenthetical 'who does so to the point of disrupting the game' after them. A person who just somewhat frequently points out what the rules are or that they aren't being adhered to doesn't rise to the level of being noticed (or certainly to the level of needing a specific moniker).

As to the behavior itself, again if you're just 'the person who points out rules/instances of divergence from the rules,' it's probably not a problem. It's when it is used as a bludgeon that it becomes problematic (or, of course, if you're just doing it all the time, which can make almost anything problematic). That theoretical person who cannot accept that they aren't going to get their way because they are certain that 'the rules' support their rightness, and in some way throw a fit, that's the theoretical person who created this toxic image of rules lawyerdom. And I say are certain deliberately, because most all of us have run into that person who is absolutely rigidly and of unchallengeable conviction of their rightness but absolutely are not (or certainly have not successfully made the case to the rest of the group of their rightness). We've also most all run into that person who (and this is more easily explained using a competitive game like MtG or a wargame as a model, so I'll switch to that language for a moment) absolutely lost the match, but wants to negate that defeat by finding a technicality. If those kinds of behaviors never showed up amongst/alongside a more general obsession with the rules and preference towards following them to a T, rules lawyerdom would probably have less of a negative connotation.

16bearswutIdo
2019-10-25, 07:40 AM
B and C are fine, A is so annoying to me that I've taken to just offering Type A Rule Lawyers the chance to DM and not argue it any further.

I have one player at my table now who rule lawyers, and he's a type B. My rule is that he can quickly make his argument, I'll consider it vs my own, but what I go with is the final call for that session. If he wants to talk about it after the session, that's completely fine.

HeraldOfExius
2019-10-25, 09:30 AM
The entire concept of being a "lawyer" is based on stereotypically incessant nitpicking. Of the three types presented, A clearly counts, because A will grind the game to a halt. I would say that whether B and C count as rules lawyers depends on how much effort they put into arguing with the GM. B isn't a rules lawyer if the issue is dropped after asking "shouldn't it be like this?" That's a player who knows the rules (or at least believes that to be the case). B could be a rules lawyer if the conversation about the rules becomes a disruption, and B only stops begrudgingly. C is the same as either A or B, depending on how the conversation after the session goes. If C does the same arguing as A, but restricts it to after the session, that's still going to get annoying to the GM.

False God
2019-10-25, 09:42 AM
A & B annoy the holy heck out of me.

But my solution is usually to assign the rule-lawyer a co-DM position and just leave describing the events to my domain, and let the rules lawyer tell the players what DC they need to beat or what checks they need to use. With the understanding that if I want something to be easier, harder, or a little different, they'll go along with me.

Such is the price of power.

Pauly
2019-10-26, 03:14 PM
I am OK with A, B and C. None of them is “rules lawyering” in my experience, as long as it is done consistently and the player can remember the rules.

What people object to is when:
- people only bring up the rulebook when it is to their advantage, and “forget” to bring it up when it is not to their advantage.
- People object to players arguing the rules when their interpretation is clearly tenuous at best.
- People object when a clearly competent player “misremembers” or “misinterprets” a common rule to their advantage, then argue the point with the DM.
- People object when a player finds an obvious loophole in an obscure rule and then exploit that loophole repeatedly.

sktarq
2019-10-26, 03:30 PM
The concept that rules lawyers are universally reviled... and honestly you can swap out 'rules lawyer' with 'min-maxer,' 'power-gamer,' or any other number of made up terms to describe a certain player behavior style... is in no small part because you rarely get called such a thing until your behavior has reached the disruptive stage. There's a silent parenthetical 'who does so to the point of disrupting the game' after them. A person who just somewhat frequently points out what the rules are or that they aren't being adhered to doesn't rise to the level of being noticed (or certainly to the level of needing a specific moniker).

QFT

basically a rules-lawyer is a player engaging in a semi-common disruptive behavior pattern. How much they have to do this in order to be disruptive is going to depend on the table, the tact and skill of the lawyer, the emotional security and tact of the GM, the scale of the rules "violations", and how much fun the other people think they are missing out on because of the lawyer (especially vs how much fun they are missing out on from having a consistent and trusted GM rulership).

in your examples most tables will have a problem with A at even moderate levels of this behavior because they are stopping the game, placing their viewpoint and needs above others, etc. Example C will probably not disrupt too many people at low to moderate levels of this behavior but at high levels it can become a real issue even at forgiving tables. Especially if it is combined with a lack of social skills. B is going to vary from table to table and will be again highly tied to the social acumen of both the lawyer and GM involved.

Pauly
2019-10-26, 03:49 PM
There is a difference between obvious mistakes, implicit DM ruling, or explicit DM ruling:

"- So the orc move here and attacks...
- Wait, there is a barrier in between, he shouldn't be able to do that!
- Oh, right, my bad, so the orc will instead ..."
=> This is fully Ok

"- So the orc move through the barrier, destroying it and attacks...
- Wait, the orc shouldn't be able to destroy the barrier without consuming its attack!"
=> A is bad. B is ok because it might still be a mistake from the DM. C is fully ok.

"- So the orc move through the barrier, destroying it with a strength and speed unnatural for a normal orc, and attacks immediately after that...
- Wait, the orc shouldn't be able to destroy the barrier without consuming its attack!"
=> A is bad. B is bad too because the DM is clearly willingly getting out of the rules here, arguing with rules is pointless. C is always ok, because I prefer having an honest discussion with players rather than having them accumulating frustration.

To reverse the situation and the orc casts blade barrier and the PC moves up to attack.
- The DM allows the player to move up and attack and says nothing. If the player says nothing and takes the obvious mistake, that’s rukes lawyering.
- The DM says “the blade barrier does not extend fully across the room”
When the player moves up to attack it is implicitly recognized that the character took a path around the blade barrier. If the player asks “what about the blade barrier” the DM can make it explicit. A consistent type A player would argue that their character does not have the movement allowance to do so. A rules lawyer will accept the advantageous ruling.
- The DM explicitly says “you brace yourself for the pain when you crss the blade barrier, but it does not affect you”. A cinsistent type A player might argue that since the DM said the orc was casting Blade Barrier not an illusion spell that they should have had a test to recognize the spell being cast. A rules lawyer will demand a do-over on the same grounds.

JNAProductions
2019-10-26, 06:52 PM
Someone who has good knowledge of the rules is a boon to the table.

However, use of that knowledge must be tempered with how much the other players (including the GM) care.

As a DM, I'm happy to have my mistakes pointed out, and will (usually on these forums-not so much in real life gaming, since my players aren't super rules savvy) ask my players to make sure I'm doing something right in circumstances I'm unsure. As such, I'd say that C is 120% fine, B is fine, and A is iffy at best.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-27, 01:02 AM
So a friend of mine says rule lawyers are universally reviled. Which rule lawyers do you hate?

A) He instantly points out what you did wrong and demands you fix it.

B) As the above, except he understands that the DM has final word.

C) As the above, except he merely mentions it, and if nobody cares, he brings it up after the game.

Or don't answer the question above and just gimme your input on rule lawyers please. Personally I think some groups do well with a few rule lawyers. Some gamer groups don't need them at all. It simply depends on the group.

A: definitely an *******, if he or she makes a stink about things and won't let it go (which is implied but technically not outright stated in the description).

B: Possibly/contextually an *******. See, I'm the kind of person who offers grammar, spelling, and diction corrections/advice IRL. Thing is? I have never, ever meant to be condescending or belittling with that. If I see or hear an error, my impulse is to help the person avoid that error. But I have learned, the hard way, that people can get extremely upset about such statements, no matter how cordially you say them, no matter how delicate and word-mincing your phrase. So now half the time I just sit there anxiously because I want to correct an error and help another avoid future mistakes, but I don't want to insult people by doing so. Fortunately, most people I hang out with and care for accept this aspect of my personality and thus welcome my corrections as assistance offered, rather than as demonstrations of superiority.

So a rules lawyer, even one who defers to the DM, can still "make a scene" if they're condescending about it. Sometimes, that's merely a matter of presenting things badly, and frank discussion will lead to apologies and other recompense. Sometimes though a player just likes showing off their superiority via rules knowledge, and that is jerk behavior.

C: Probably not an *******. They gauge the situation and if the group no-sells it, they keep it to themselves. They seem socially aware enough to avoid problem behavior without just ignoring their own preferences, which is a pretty good place to be.

I would also add D: You only make a mental note (or mention it privately/discreetly to the DM during a break or something) and never take up play time with rules minutia. This person is pretty much golden, as they are actively avoiding nuisance behavior. It's still possible to be a jerk this way. For example, you could be making passive-aggressive plays at control, slowly manipulating the DM into playing your way, etc. But I generally don't think most D&D players are that manipulative.

I disagree with Koo Rehtorb--I don't think a player has to exhibit other areas of bad behavior. There are three core characteristics, as covered in the other thread, that might *only* get expressed through rules lawyer behavior (RLB):
1. Smugness and superiority. This, I think, is the one most likely to "only" find expression in RLB. It's not that you can't act high and mighty about other stuff, but rather that *when gaming* the natural pick IS superiority at the game. The person might be pretty nice otherwise, but be douchey about showing off how amazing they are at the game as a ploy to earn respect and admiration.
2. Selfishness and grasping. This one, I admit, is likely to apply beyond just RLB. But it is a powerful *motive* for it, and is a great way to make your rules commentary grating and disliked very quickly. Mistakes should at least sometimes negatively affect you and/or positively affect your allies but *not* you, if you aren't biased about what things you comment on.
3. Caprice. A number of rules lawyers are content to let mistakes slide if they like those mistakes. This is a great way to remove the "but I just want to help" justification. If you want to help people play the game by the rules, you should be consistent about it, not selectively ignoring some mistakes and throwing a fit about others. This also dovetails with the selfishness, which is a similar selectiveness but based on who is affected, not how they are affected.

This is why I prefer to use alternate terms for someone who uses their rules knowledge respectfully and positively. "Rules expert" is probably mg preferred term, but "rules guru" and "game guide" are also good. They emphasize that it's about assistance and clarification, not hunting ruthlessly for exploits or trying to show off.

oxybe
2019-10-27, 01:32 AM
Here is how I see it:

Are you being an AHole about your rule knowledge? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about your character's story? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about the campaign world canon lore? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about your [Thing]? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole? then sod off.

Don't be a jerk. I don't particularly care you're passionate about a thing, as long as you're not a jerk about it.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-27, 01:55 AM
Here is how I see it:

Are you being an AHole about your rule knowledge? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about your character's story? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about the campaign world canon lore? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole about your [Thing]? then sod off.

Are you being an AHole? then sod off.

Don't be a jerk. I don't particularly care you're passionate about a thing, as long as you're not a jerk about it.

Sure. But if "don't have bad behavior, have good behavior" were effective advice, morality and law would be a hell of a lot simpler than they are.

oxybe
2019-10-27, 04:53 AM
Sure. But if "don't have bad behavior, have good behavior" were effective advice, morality and law would be a hell of a lot simpler than they are.

It's actually pretty simple when you only have to manage like... 6 people, tops.

"[you] are being disruptive with [actions], stop it or leave."

At my table bad behavior is punished and repeat offenders are excommunicated. You can game if you want, you just can't game *here*. Go bother Kevin, this is my game and you are no longer invited.

I don't need to call the police and await a trial several weeks later by a jury of peers to tell a disruptive player to leave my table.

Something like the Adventurer's League is a bit more of a complex beast to manage then my home game.

You act like a richard? You get the boot.

ezekielraiden
2019-10-27, 05:53 AM
It's actually pretty simple when you only have to manage like... 6 people, tops.

"[you] are being disruptive with [actions], stop it or leave."
I wasn't responding to even something as only loosely-useful as "stop doing specific thing X, or leave." I was responding to, "Don't be a ****." That is nearly useless because it doesn't even specify what is wrong. If someone genuinely doesn't understand how their actions have been bad--or worse, they feel they were in the right!--then telling them "don't be a ****" is at best pointless, and at worst actively inflames the problem.

FabulousFizban
2019-10-28, 12:41 AM
if they become disruptive to the gaming event

Darkstar952
2019-10-28, 11:55 AM
Someone who has good knowledge of the rules is a boon to the table.

However, use of that knowledge must be tempered with how much the other players (including the GM) care.

As a DM, I'm happy to have my mistakes pointed out, and will (usually on these forums-not so much in real life gaming, since my players aren't super rules savvy) ask my players to make sure I'm doing something right in circumstances I'm unsure. As such, I'd say that C is 120% fine, B is fine, and A is iffy at best.

Pretty much this, I would also say it all depends on the expectations of the table. Are they expecting it to be strictly RAW, or are they expecting RAW with exceptions from Rule of Cool, or are they all just expecting the rules to form a loose guide.

I would also add that the way the "Rules Lawyer" approaches the subject can have a massive impact on how well received they are. If they are genuinely just trying to help out with their system knowledge it generally will come across much better, but if they are rude/aggressive in how they point it out, or are only pointing out rules issues that are in their favour then it is much more likely to cause offence.

darkrose50
2019-10-28, 12:47 PM
Today's rules are not yesterday's rules. Todays rules are better written. Back in the day arguing over a poorly written rule was like arguing over your favorite flavor of ice-cream. It was all opinion.

So a "rules lawyer" was someone who argued over a rule that could be interoperated in many different ways.

As a hobby we have progressed in rules writing. Having someone understand a well-written set of rules is often welcomed. This is not the same as day's of yore folks who just wanted to argue over rulings that were largely opinion based.

Someone pointing out that lycanthropy works like X, when the DM is running a game where not all werewolves are CE 8th level monsters (or whatever they are) would be unhelpful.

Pointing out or clarifying how smiting works when a player character is playing a Paladin is quite helpful. Especially if the DM got it wrong. It should be handled politely, but something like this should be welcomed by the table.

Old-timy rules-lawyers had a lot more opinions to work with. New rules-lawyers have a lot more facts to work with. Folks arguing over opinions are often not helpful. Don't tell me that my favorite ice cream flavor is terrible, and that I should instead like your favorite flavor.

For example if a rule said that X occurred at evening . . . then let the arguments begin . . . as evening does not have a precise definition.

If a rule said next Tuesday . . . is that the very next Tuesday to hit the calendar, or the one after that. Is your "this Tuesday" someone else's "next Tuesday"?

Is garbage day the day you prepare the garbage to be picked up, or the day that the garbage man picks it up?

Requiring cola to cast a spell might cause arguments. 7-Up is not cola by me, but by someone else 7-Up is totally called cola.

Is a few blocks out of the way still on-the-way-home? Or does something that is literally ONLY on-the-way-home count.

Using wibbly-wobbly words can screw up so many things.

JadedDM
2019-10-28, 03:33 PM
This all misses the point; a rules lawyer is not a person who knows the rules well. It's someone who exploits the ambiguity of rules or the lack of other people's knowledge of the rules, and just acts obnoxious until they get their way. As the word lawyer implies, a rules lawyer does not care about accuracy or fairness any more than a real lawyer cares about truth and justice. A real lawyer exploits the law to win cases. They will defend a guilty person because that is what they are paid to do. Likewise, a rules lawyer will make any argument to get an advantage, but will not care if the DM makes a mistake that benefits the rules lawyer.

Knaight
2019-10-28, 06:16 PM
If you're not gonna stick to the rules, why bother having them. DM gets final say and you should never substantially disrupt the game over it but there's nothing wrong with making sure the rules are being followed and calling out errors when you see them.

Technically speaking the rules of Scrabble (not the tournament rules, but the standard rules) have a turn structure where you can play whatever arbitrary 7 tiles you have when the game can end to end the game by playing whatever non-word you want - the game ends before the turn order moves which would let you contest it. That doesn't mean actually doing so is anything other than a **** move, or that the table telling someone that no, they can't do that is houseruling mid game and being unfair by doing so.

There are a lot of similar cases in a lot of RPGs, and in the hands of most people they work fine; there's usually a more general rule that can be used in lieu of the specific rule causing hiccups and so you can just move on. People being willing to bend the rules a bit is the oil in the engine, and rules lawyers can really disrupt the process by insisting that the rules must be stuck to.