PDA

View Full Version : Rules Lawyers



Dancingdeath
2020-11-28, 07:29 AM
Rules Lawyers.... are they evil? I've encountered a few and they always kill the fun of a game. At least in my experience. If the only way they can feel they can have fun is to brag about their superior gaming knowledge then they can do so somewhere else. And God help you if you get one as your GM. They'll try to quiz people over rules, obsess over minutae, and generally terrorize the group with their tiny shred of power.

I may be a bit bitter over a recent experience with one over on rpol but I can't be the only one who feels this way right?

Batcathat
2020-11-28, 08:08 AM
I predict this thread will have the same issue as the one about GMPCs (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622002-Positive-GMPC-experiences) in that people will probably have different opinions on what exactly counts as a Rules Lawyer. Is it specifically someone who uses their knowledge of the rules to their advantage (and/or other people's disadvantage) or simply someone who's a stickler for the rules as written?

Spore
2020-11-28, 09:10 AM
To put it bluntly and briefly.

I do not like sticklers for the rules, but I understand a need for a solid framework for the game. We had a DM, that enjoyed a bit of freeform where the rules ruined his fun, and gave a bit of freedom to the players as well. The lawyer in question was the only one whose character was actually sound by the rules and he refused to receive freebies outside the rules. I understood that sticking with the rules wouldve cut our character's power down which made him shine a bit more, because if your character is grounded in gritty-ish realism, and your DM removes rules that enforce such realism because they annoy the group, you are bound for a bad experience.

CharonsHelper
2020-11-28, 09:30 AM
There two general things that people mean when they say "rules lawyer".

1. Rules Traditionalist: Those who want everyone to play by the rules. They may be open to house-rules, but they need to be consistent house-rules known beforehand - and none of this "seat of the pants" calls etc. (Full disclosure: I lean pretty heavily this way - though I'm 100% fine with house-rules which are known quantities. Usually. :smallcool:)

Having one or two Rules Traditionalists at the table CAN be very beneficial - as they know the rules and can chime in to help - and they will play the rules just as hard on themselves as everyone else. But they can be a bad fit for GMs/tables who don't really care about the rules and want to play seat-of-their-pants style.

2. Rules Sharks: These are the players who try to always get more for their character. They always read the rules in the best possible light for their character, and they're often inconsistent in how they want the rules read for themselves and the NPCs they're fighting. If the GM calls them on their misreading, they'll try to haggle to still get more than the rules state. etc. Nobody likes these guys.

Quertus
2020-11-28, 09:39 AM
So, as a self-proclaimed Rules Lawyer, I agree with Batcathat that how you define the terms will change the outcome of the inquiry.

I believe in following the rules, and not allowing Knights to move diagonal, Pawns to take 3 turns in a row, or Queens to spawn Bishops at random intervals, no matter what the demands of The Plot, no matter to whose advantage the rules are.

I also happen to enjoy a good rules debate - it really is one of the most fun parts of a game. (Mind you, that was a good rules debate - most anyone who is not my brother probably isn't capable of a good multi-hour debate; most IME aren't capable of good debate for even a few minutes).

But that wasn't the question. The question was, are they evil. And yes, yes I am batting for team Lawful Evil.

Still, I think that the idea of bragging about superior game knowledge, or GMs who quiz people on the rules is... strange. And "terroriz[ing] the group with their tiny shred of power" is the province of a bad GM, not of a Rules Lawyer. Maybe play with better Rules Lawyers people?

Pex
2020-11-28, 09:46 AM
The good rules lawyers pick their battles. They don't question everything. If a character's life hinges on it say something. Otherwise gauge the room and the moment. If a player is at his most excited state enjoying the moment of absolute coolness but what he wants to do breaks the rules on a minor technicality, let it go and say nothing. If a rule break occurs but it doesn't make a difference to what's happening, let it go and say nothing. Say something when the error is blatant and it makes a significant difference to how the game is to be played. Most DMs tend to correct the error with no animosity. No matter what, when the rules lawyer does say something but the DM goes with the rule break anyway with full knowledge that's what it is, the rules lawyer should let it go and say nothing more.

zarionofarabel
2020-11-28, 10:01 AM
As a GM I make it so I know all the rules of the system I am using that way the players don't need to so they can concentrate on playing their PCs. I do not use the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the players as I already have that advantage as I am the GM.

As for players that try to twist rules to give them an unfair advantage over me as a GM? Well, I simply have a dragon eat their PC!

As for players that try to twist rules to give them an unfair advantage over me as a player? Well, I would retaliate in game by having my PC attack and kill their PC! I also make sure that my PC is the most powerful combat PC in the group so this is an easy task to accomplish in case this scenario arises.

As for players that simply learn the rules and use their knowledge of the rules to assist a GM who doesn't know the rules as well as they should, well, more power to them!

NOTE: As GM you should know all the rules to the system you are using. If you don't, switch to a system that uses simpler rules so you can remember them all. Personally I can't stand a GM that uses a system that is too complicated that they can't remember all the rules. There are systems out there with rulesets that fit on an index card!

Vahnavoi
2020-11-28, 11:57 AM
You might as well ask: lawyers... are they evil?

Because we all know what the stereotypical answer to that question is, and the concept of "rules lawyer" evokes it. Lawyers are evil... because the stereotypical lawyer is thought of as arguing from dubious interpretation of law for a case of dubious morality, in a distinctly smug and self-serving manner.

Of course anyone who behaves remotely like the stereotype is a god-damned pest. :smalltongue:

But if you're willing to look past the stereotype, then no, #notalllawyers are evil. It's perfectly possible that the guy thumping the rulebook and arguing for a specific rules interpretation that's in their advantage... is being perfectly reasonable, right and justified. I still don't like rules lawyering during actual play. It takes time and attention from playing the game. If your case cannot be made and solved in a minute or so, then save it for after the game or between sessions.

Jason
2020-11-28, 12:03 PM
Depends on what you mean by "Rules Lawyer", because having someone in your games who knows the rules in addition to you the GM can actually be very helpful, if they use their powers for good rather than evil.

Having someone who likes to interrupt a typical action scene to point out that you didn't use exactly the right modifier and then is willing to bring everything to a screeching halt to debate the point is not helpful.

Having someone the other players can ask obscure rules questions to while you are handling someone else's obscure rules question is actually very helpful.

NigelWalmsley
2020-11-28, 01:40 PM
Rules are vital to the operation of a TTRPG, because it is a cooperative medium that depends on everyone being able to agree about what is happening and what the effects of actions are. In a book, a monster can simply be however tough the plot requires it to be, and the heroes can defeat it or not defeat it based on how the author thinks the plot should develop. That doesn't work in a TTRPG. The monster has some stats, and the players have abilities and choose tactics, the monster will be defeated or not defeated in some way that is nominally fair based on the rules.

That said, this doesn't mean that you have to follow the printed rules exactly. But it does mean that if you are going to deviate from those rules, it should be done openly and explicitly because it produces a better game, rather than implicitly because you simply forgot what the rule was supposed to be (or thought it was clashing with your vision for the story). Frankly, "rules lawyering" is often a result of two people with roughly similar levels of familiarity with the rules, one of which simply happens to remember a rule the other forgot.

Spiderswims
2020-11-28, 01:44 PM
Rules Lawyers.... are they evil?

No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".

And it's easy enough to block the rules sharks....really all you need to is shark up the game and watch the feeding frenzy. You will watch the rule shark whine quick enough "wait no fair, the drow are using my rule trick!"

JNAProductions
2020-11-28, 01:52 PM
It depends.

A Rules Lawyer who strives to make sure the rules are applied properly and fairly is generally good for the table-they can take it too far, but if they're a good player, they'll understand that when the GM says "This my ruling, and that's how we're doing it," it's time to drop it until at least the end of the session.

A Rules Lawyer (described above as a Rule Shark, which is a term I have not heard before but like a lot) that is trying to game the system for their advantage, ignoring rules when it would detract from them but being a stickler when it helps them, is just being a bad player.

Back when I was playing 5E in a gaming shop, I was far and away the most knowledgeable on the rules. The DM would goof up reasonably often, and it was usually a quick fix. As an example, we were fighting... Magog, I think, and he made an attack of opportunity against a target he couldn't see. I pointed out you can't do that, the DM asked if I was sure, I said yes, and there was no more attack of opportunity.

Part of it also depends on the GM's style and announcements. If the GM starts at session zero with "So, I'm going to be sticking with rule of cool and rule of fun, rules be damned," then I would expect a Rules Lawyer to either not play, as the table is not for them, or to accept it and not point out when rules are broken. If the GM says "We'll be sticking to the rules, excepting for these houserules," and then gives a short list of explicit houserules, then it's much more reasonable for a Rules Lawyer to point out when someone goofs.

Above all, whether or not I'd like a Rules Lawyer at the table really depends on what they're like as a player. Fair and equitable, fun to play with, and knowledgeable? Fantastic! A conniving almost-cheater who's looking for every advantage and doesn't care about other people's fun? Nope. Not allowed at my table.

Alcore
2020-11-28, 02:22 PM
Rules Lawyers.... are they evil? i don't think of myself as evil... doee that count?



I've encountered a few and they always kill the fun of a game. At least in my experience. If the only way they can feel they can have fun is to brag about their superior gaming knowledge then they can do so somewhere else. .... while i do take the role of wet blanket that second sentence sounds more like a mix/maxer or power gamer... :smallconfused:


And God help you if you get one as your GM. They'll try to quiz people over rules, obsess over minutae, and generally terrorize the group with their tiny shred of power.wow...

The minutae being so overlooked is part of why i don't DM anymore...


I may be a bit bitter over a recent experience with one over on rpol but I can't be the only one who feels this way right?probably not.

Some DMs appreciate my presence. In a Play by Post game there was this pit and the players were all on and i remarked what the DC should be to jump over (someone asked). By the time the DM came back online we crossed the pit, fished the gnome out of the hole, role played and we were ready for him.


Others would ask me a question or start a discussion on how one could build X (fortunately i don't optimize characters so character related questions were rare). Sometimes, after the DM ruled something* and we carriedvit out i would mention a rule system in some obscure book that was exactly what was needed.

*never undercut a DM. Private message or nothing.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-28, 02:41 PM
I don't mind someone reminding me/the DM that we agreed to resolve certain situations <like so>. As long as they don't do it in a nasty or accusatory tone. Often "didn't we say we'd <X>?" or "isn't the default rule for that <Y>?" is enough. It leaves room for me (or the DM) to say "yes, but because of <PDQ>, I think we should <ABC>" as well as "doh. Yeah, you're right." I also don't mind people acting as resources for answering "what's the best way to do <X>?" or "what's the default way to handle <Y>?"

What I can't stand is people weaponizing rules. "You have to/can't do <X> because pg 666 of rulebook ABC, combined with this one phrase (ripped totally out of context) in this other obscure text means that you have to..." or "but the rules say I have to <X fun-unfriendly action>". Rules are not sacred texts. And, more importantly, neither are your interpretations of them, even if backed up by legions of internet folks. Because that's what it comes down to most of the time. People insisting that their own personal interpretations are "the rules". And often using that as an excuse to cover party-fun-unfriendly behavior. It's My Guy Syndrome, Rules edition. Printed words make poor weapons and even worse shields. You can't deflect blame for your own actions onto the rules. They didn't make you do anything. You chose to act that way, and then blame the defenseless and innocent rules.

If the rules ask you do un-fun things, ignore them or change them. They exist as suggested resolution mechanisms and content to help the group as a whole have fun. They're not in control. They can't be--they're inanimate. Only people can make choices. And only people can bear responsibility for their choices.

As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules. Because he's given the express authority to disregard or change any rule at any time for any reason. This does not mean that he should do so, especially not for no reason. But he's not bound by the rules; he makes the rules. Of course, that means he bears greater responsibility if (and when) he screws up. Something something Spiderman.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-11-28, 07:04 PM
There's nothing wrong with rules lawyers per se. But yes, a part of the asshattery you encounter in gaming is due to or worsened by rules lawyering. Knowing the rules gives a certain power; the baseline assumption of playing a game is that you follow the rules, so an appeal to the rules can be an effective way to guide others' behaviour at the table. As such, asshattery supported by rules knowledge can be more difficult to deal with than "regular" asshattery.



As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules. Because he's given the express authority to disregard or change any rule at any time for any reason. This does not mean that he should do so, especially not for no reason. But he's not bound by the rules; he makes the rules. Of course, that means he bears greater responsibility if (and when) he screws up. Something something Spiderman.
This is the concept of discretion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion) (or prerogative).

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-28, 07:20 PM
This is the concept of discretion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion) (or prerogative).

Yes, and as far as the game is concerned, the DM is Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary all in one. Only a full-scale revolt can stop him (with drastic consequences). SO legally (using game rules as laws in this analogy), he's unassailable. Morally (and practically if he wants to have a game), there's a lot of things he should not do.

The point being, telling a DM "You're wrong, the rules say you have to X/can't do X" is meaningless. The rules say that the DM can do whatever he wants. It's better to say "if you don't rule X/do rule X, that would be bad for the fun of the table because PDQ reasons." Rulebooks make for very bad weapons. And the reverse goes for a DM claiming that they have to do X (where X is something anti-fun) because the rules say so. Rulebooks make even worse shields.

Dancingdeath
2020-11-28, 08:04 PM
Yeah I didn't mean literal evil. Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off. Maybe I just mean arrogant players/GMs. Or both to a degree. They're fun killing nozzles for feminine hygiene products and should be thrown out after one use.... for the same reason.

My cardinal rule is Story>Rules 100% of the time. We're adults playing make believe. You can't get too serious about it or the whole thing falls apart.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-11-28, 09:30 PM
Yeah I didn't mean literal evil. Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off. [...]

My cardinal rule is Story>Rules 100% of the time. We're adults playing make believe. You can't get too serious about it or the whole thing falls apart.
(1) Semantic arguments are not illogical. All logical arguments require semantics. Each logic itself has an appropriate semantics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_logic)--that's part of the definition of "logic" (there's a lot of interesting differences between formal and natural language, too!). What I think you dislike is hair-splitting about the meaning of words (like what I'm doing now), but sometimes it's still important to make the point (like now, when you say bad things about my beloved semantics).
(2) Exactly because we are adults, we can get very serious about playing make-believe. I'm a grown-up gamer using grown-up cognitive skills to play grown-up make-believe. The thing doesn't fall apart until you stop playing.

NigelWalmsley
2020-11-28, 09:46 PM
The whole point of having rules is to take them seriously. If you don't want people to argue about what the rules mean, you can play a ruleslight game like Munchausen. I promise you that you will have zero disputes about what the rules covering the game are. But the downside of that is that you don't have any rules to keep the story on track for a specific genre or setting.

Alcore
2020-11-28, 10:02 PM
You see, I just don't believe that story trumps rules all the time. There is this thing called suspension of disbelief. I'm sure we have all heard of that term cuz building a story with dungeons and dragons tends to require building something like a bridge. You got to make it believable and you can do this by grounding it with rules. Thus you build the belief that the world is believable and we can all escape into fantasy Land.


Every one of my settings to date, even if all I'm doing is writing a novel, has rules grounding it. Nothing breaks my suspension of disbelief like a villain that just has as many minions as he needs, who has as much money as he needs, and everyone just travels at the speed of plot. So all my maps are hex maps with a hex having a specific amount of miles in it. Each kingdom has its own stat block with its number of troops carefully placed or not so carefully. The point is it is that there is a finite number of them and the kingdom can only generate just so much capital to support so much of a kingdom. Even my towns have stat blocks usually they are so small that they don't actually register on the kingdom scale but they are there. I take these from the number of systems. Dungeons & dragons 3.5 edition, Pathfinder, mutants and masterminds second edition. that last one is more for novels when I don't want any main characters, whether heroes or villains, to follow a predictable level progression.


I suppose I'm less of a rules lawyer and more of a simulationist. I like to think that I'm not too bad about it.


Cuz if I can build a world that's believable enough no one will question when something doesn't quite work right when I make a mistake. Because the suspension of disbelief holds it up well enough that the players, or the audience if they're reading a novel, can simply enjoy themselves.




Sounds like you got burned pretty bad by someone you consider a rules lawyer. They probably are. Just try to bounce back and don't let this incident hold you back.

Dancingdeath
2020-11-28, 10:35 PM
These are words I'm typing. Anyone wish to argue about that?

Zhorn
2020-11-28, 10:41 PM
These are words I'm typing. Anyone wish to argue about that?
I will argue!
I have no direct counter to what you have written, but in your writing you imply that the use of wish is permissible, therefore I would like to use wish, as permitted by your very writing, to change your statement to include an assertion we all know to be false and worthy of argument!

Rynjin
2020-11-29, 03:16 AM
There two general things that people mean when they say "rules lawyer".

1. Rules Traditionalist: Those who want everyone to play by the rules. They may be open to house-rules, but they need to be consistent house-rules known beforehand - and none of this "seat of the pants" calls etc. (Full disclosure: I lean pretty heavily this way - though I'm 100% fine with house-rules which are known quantities. Usually. :smallcool:)

This is pretty much the camp I fall into, as both a GM and a player. I think houserules are fine, and even on the fly calls; so long as they're consistent. I have a friend who houserules away people being Flatfooted on the first round of combat for Pathfinder (with the caveat that they're still vulnerable to Sneak Attack), and that's fine; it's not the way I run things, but it's fine.

The problem comes win when you have a guy who says "people aren't Flatfooted on the first round of combat" and then forgets 3 sessions later and tries to whack your Flatfooted AC and gets huffy if you call them on it.


No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".


As long as you, as the GM, made sure to build them that way, sure. If you made a mistake of some kind and are just trying to bluff to cover it, that's just kind of toxic.

MoiMagnus
2020-11-29, 08:37 AM
Rules Lawyers.... are they evil? I've encountered a few and they always kill the fun of a game. At least in my experience. If the only way they can feel they can have fun is to brag about their superior gaming knowledge then they can do so somewhere else. And God help you if you get one as your GM. They'll try to quiz people over rules, obsess over minutae, and generally terrorize the group with their tiny shred of power.

I may be a bit bitter over a recent experience with one over on rpol but I can't be the only one who feels this way right?

1) Some peoples get their fun from showing they're superior to the other players and/or from ruining the fun of others. Those peoples are problematic to play with, it doesn't matter if they are rule lawyers, munchkins, powergamers, or that guy that want to be the "main character" and have all the plot revolve around his "very special" PC.

2) A lot of peoples love arguing. But don't confuse that with them wanting to brag about their knowledge, or them wanting to "win argument at all cost". They're just seeking for sparing partner in those semantics and hair-splitting games. It is fine as long as they're not completely oblivious of their surrounding and don't notice that they are ruining the fun of the other peoples by killing the pacing of the game. For those kind of peoples, the best way to handle them is to convince them to postpone any argument to the end of the session, when all the uninterested peoples are packing their stuff and all the hair-splitters can start arguing.

3) Peoples prefer when situations resolve in reasonably predictable ways. The main problem is that not everyone predict things in the same way. Some peoples are here to play a game with rule, and find sticking to the rules much more predictable than making on-the-fly exceptions because it arbitrarily felt right to the DM. Some peoples are here to play a make-believe, and find following what the story would naturally create to be much more predictable than some obscure rule technicality leading to some absurd resolution.
=> When taking two peoples from opposite side, they will hate each others for pushing the game toward what they find illogical and unpredictable.

Unavenger
2020-11-29, 09:12 AM
(1) Semantic arguments are not illogical. All logical arguments require semantics. Each logic itself has an appropriate semantics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_logic)--that's part of the definition of "logic" (there's a lot of interesting differences between formal and natural language, too!). What I think you dislike is hair-splitting about the meaning of words (like what I'm doing now), but sometimes it's still important to make the point (like now, when you say bad things about my beloved semantics).

...Okay, so last time we had a thread mired in semantics, I objected to the semantics on the basis that people were choosing to define their good GMPC's into nonexistence rather than answer the question. Today, people are trying to define their bad semantics into nonexistence via bad semantics, which is extraordinary. To be clear, we are talking about the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics), or the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics).

:vaarsuvius: Now can we please resume saving the world?

Tanarii
2020-11-29, 10:30 AM
If the rules ask you do un-fun things, ignore them or change them.


As a side note, I firmly believe that the DM (in D&D at least) can't break the rules.
But the DM believes the party surviving isn't fun. The rules are there for the players protection. Clearly carefully defined rules, and quoting them when broken, is the only defense.

noob
2020-11-29, 10:33 AM
No? More annoying then anything. But they are easy enough to put in their place.

As long as you are playing a RPG like D&D that is very complex and has tons of content. A rule lawyer might whine "that orc is moving faster then the Official Rules Official Normal Orc Movement Rate!" And as a GM you just need to sit back and laugh "Hum, oh why yes, it does appear that way...wonder what feat, magic item, class ability, power or magic effect that orc could be using...hummm".

And it's easy enough to block the rules sharks....really all you need to is shark up the game and watch the feeding frenzy. You will watch the rule shark whine quick enough "wait no fair, the drow are using my rule trick!"
What that player did was not rule lawyering but instead basic rule ignorance.

Monsters have whatever stats the gm gives them and it can be the ability to run at the speed of light and destroy galaxies if the gm wants the monster to in dnd like rpgs due to the word of the gm is law structure of dnd likes games and the ability they often give to just add content as wanted if you are a gm.

Just because a player thinks they are a rule lawyer does not means they are one.
A real rule lawyer would be doing stuff when they have proof: for example their friend try to throw a moon at the planet and they say "hey this moon is above your carry capacity by 10 grams because you did let your axe fall on it 1 minute ago and your tophat of splendour apply only to social checks and not to checks based on splendour"

Saint-Just
2020-11-29, 11:37 AM
...Okay, so last time we had a thread mired in semantics, I objected to the semantics on the basis that people were choosing to define their good GMPC's into nonexistence rather than answer the question. Today, people are trying to define their bad semantics into nonexistence via bad semantics, which is extraordinary. To be clear, we are talking about the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics), or the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics).

:vaarsuvius: Now can we please resume saving the world?

Let justice be done, though the world perish! You made a general statement about semantic arguments (they are illogical), ExLibrisMortis made a specific statement (semantics are required for logical arguments), and then you act like your original point was about bad semantics. But it was about semantic arguments in general. Bad semantics, anyone? That's what I get for trying to answer two posts in haste. Sorry.



Just because a player thinks they are a rule lawyer does not means they are one.
A real rule lawyer would be doing stuff when they have proof: for example their friend try to throw a moon at the planet and they say "hey this moon is above your carry capacity by 10 grams because you did let your axe fall on it 1 minute ago and your tophat of splendour apply only to social checks and not to checks based on splendour"

If you make a parallel with real-life lawyering, lawyers are supposed to be able to see opposing side arguments. Even when there is an impartial judge not being able to disprove the opposition's arguments would make a lawyer nearly (but not absolutely) useless.

There is a significant difference between between house rules (which are very widely accepted), internally consistent but non-obvious situations ("I said to players this is a kobold, but in truth it is a doppelganger, so he is much stronger than he looks") and outright mistakes. And therefore there is a significant difference between DM who takes care to disambiguate those situations (and make sure it is not a third one) and a DM who see any disagreement with them as a challenge to their authority (or always say "yes, yes, I am sure, I will not tell you why").

Unavenger
2020-11-29, 11:43 AM
Let justice be done, though the world perish! You made a general statement about semantic arguments (they are illogical), ExLibrisMortis made a specific statement (semantics are required for logical arguments), and then you act like your original point was about bad semantics. But it was about semantic arguments in general. Bad semantics, anyone?

I made no such "general statement". I'm not the same person as the OP, unsurprisingly, which is what these weird "Username" and "Avatar" things are for (although I should at some point get a personalised one, mine is still different from OPs, so the point stands).

But anyway, the point is that semantics is a word with multiple meanings. OP clearly, obviously meant one of those meanings, and then along comes ExLibrisMortis committing the fallacy of equivocation and trying to pretend like they meant something different. Rather than assuming the OP meant something that was clearly nonsense, why not assume that they actually meant something that meant something, and argue against that? Unless, of course, there's no point arguing semantics (in the sense that OP and I both mean it), and even less point in arguing semantics about the word semantics, and the only way to defend that decision is by pretending that everyone means something they don't.

Pex
2020-11-29, 01:52 PM
But the DM believes the party surviving isn't fun. The rules are there for the players protection. Clearly carefully defined rules, and quoting them when broken, is the only defense.

Unfortunately, it's actually true for some DMs in black not blue text.
:smallwink:

Quertus
2020-11-29, 06:24 PM
1) Some peoples get their fun from showing they're superior to the other players and/or from ruining the fun of others. Those peoples are problematic to play with, it doesn't matter if they are rule lawyers, munchkins, powergamers, or that guy that want to be the "main character" and have all the plot revolve around his "very special" PC.

2) A lot of peoples love arguing. But don't confuse that with them wanting to brag about their knowledge, or them wanting to "win argument at all cost". They're just seeking for sparing partner in those semantics and hair-splitting games. It is fine as long as they're not completely oblivious of their surrounding and don't notice that they are ruining the fun of the other peoples by killing the pacing of the game. For those kind of peoples, the best way to handle them is to convince them to postpone any argument to the end of the session, when all the uninterested peoples are packing their stuff and all the hair-splitters can start arguing.

3) Peoples prefer when situations resolve in reasonably predictable ways. The main problem is that not everyone predict things in the same way. Some peoples are here to play a game with rule, and find sticking to the rules much more predictable than making on-the-fly exceptions because it arbitrarily felt right to the DM. Some peoples are here to play a make-believe, and find following what the story would naturally create to be much more predictable than some obscure rule technicality leading to some absurd resolution.
=> When taking two peoples from opposite side, they will hate each others for pushing the game toward what they find illogical and unpredictable.

1 is, indeed, a problem. Well, the first part is only *usually* a problem - "showing off" can be done well.

Combining 2&3, it should be logically obvious that the people who don't like arguing should read the room, and spotlight share with those who do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

If, however, your enjoyment is so fragile that you *cannot* share the spotlight, or your immersion so shark-like that it cannot survive when it stops swimming, then it seems to me that it would behoove you to give the rules lawyer the +2 "aid another" bonus, with a "he's right" or "that sounds cool - let's do that". If the whole table consistently does this (especially with a rules traditionalist), it communicates to the GM what kind of game you want run: a cooperative one, where everybody has fun, because you play by the rules, and do so quickly and efficiently. When the table consistently communicates that they are willing to stage such a "mini-coup", perhaps the GM will even be Incentivized to actually learn the rules of the game, to just natively run the type of game that the group wants: one that follows the rules, so that there's no need for rules lawyering, and you can remain immersed.

icefractal
2020-11-29, 06:55 PM
Combining 2&3, it should be logically obvious that the people who don't like arguing should read the room, and spotlight share with those who do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
That depends. If the rest of the group all likes to argue, then sure, either accept it or find another group. But if it's one person? I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

Like, if I wanted to periodically stop the game to play a round of Smash Bros, or MtG, I don't think anyone would need to "spotlight share" with me doing that - they'd be well within their rights to say "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D."

Also - "always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster"? That's assuming the player in question is even correct, and regardless it's creating a perverse incentive, the same way giving obnoxious shouty customers whatever they want just to shut them up does.


Which is not to say that I never rules-lawyer. But I always try to check the rubric for whether it's even merited:
1) Could the thing that happened plausibly be within the rules? For example, the GM has an enemy move and attack with two weapons. That's something that can be done with a feat that you can get at 1st level, so whether the GM remembered to actually give the NPC that feat I don't much care - they easily could have and it would still be the same CR.

2) Does it change anything? A player shoots at a prone enemy and hits by 10, but they forgot to take the take the prone modifier into account. But hitting by 6 is the same as hitting by 10 in this case, so no, it doesn't change anything.

3) Does it change anything important? On its last turn alive, the Ogre hits a PC for 7 damage. But really, it should have only been 5 damage because of some Strength damage it took. However, the PC didn't die and will still need the same amount of healing resources (because it's Lesser Vigor and will be enough for either, say). So while there was technically a change, it wasn't important. This one is a little subjective, because if it's very quick OOC, like a simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") then the threshold to be 'important' is much lower than if it's going to need an extended discussion.

The main area where I'd stress about something that other players might prefer to let fly is things happening "because plot", because that just grates on me. And even then, it's more that I want a justification. A city built so you can't teleport into it? Sure, that's possible, there's even a special underdark mineral to facilitate it. Some random forest blocking teleportation "just because" and not being considered unusual or strategically important by the world at large? Eh, now it bugs me.

Cluedrew
2020-11-29, 08:04 PM
I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-11-29, 08:26 PM
...Okay, so last time we had a thread mired in semantics, I objected to the semantics on the basis that people were choosing to define their good GMPC's into nonexistence rather than answer the question. Today, people are trying to define their bad semantics into nonexistence via bad semantics, which is extraordinary. To be clear, we are talking about the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics), or the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics).

But anyway, the point is that semantics is a word with multiple meanings. OP clearly, obviously meant one of those meanings, and then along comes ExLibrisMortis committing the fallacy of equivocation and trying to pretend like they meant something different. Rather than assuming the OP meant something that was clearly nonsense, why not assume that they actually meant something that meant something, and argue against that? Unless, of course, there's no point arguing semantics (in the sense that OP and I both mean it), and even less point in arguing semantics about the word semantics, and the only way to defend that decision is by pretending that everyone means something they don't.
It's interesting that you do all the things you berate me for. No, we're not using that first definition. That's a non-standard use that you don't see much (and isn't in the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries, not in the Wiktionary, and not mentioned in the wiki article on semantics or propaganda). It's pretty clear that you pulled up a non-standard definition just to support a complaint you were making anyway.

Funnily enough, even if we were using that definition, what I wrote applies. The statement "semantic arguments are illogical" isn't true under any interpretation of "semantics".

JadedDM
2020-11-29, 10:01 PM
I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

Only one of those three sounds like a lawyer to me.

Unavenger
2020-11-30, 04:49 AM
No, we're not using that first definition. That's a non-standard use that you don't see much.

...

Are you kidding? That's the one definition of semantics that one sees all the time - literally every time I've heard someone say "That's just semantics." The first person to mention semantics in this thread said "Semantic arguments are illogical and piss me off." You then acknowledged that he meant "hair-splitting about the meaning of words" while simultaneously denying that he was using the correct word for it.


It's interesting that you do all the things you berate me for.

No.

You're the one who saw someone saying "Semantic", clearly referring to technicalities about the meaning of words - specifically the meaning of the term "evil" - and then decided that rather than the common definition that 99% of people use, and the only one that made any sense in this context, they must really have meant the technical definition that you had to link because you knew that the person you were responding to wouldn't be familiar with it. You knew that wasn't what they meant - because why would you have to explain what someone means, to them, if they already meant it? - and chose to challenge what they meant because you judged them to be using the word incorrectly.

They obviously didn't mean that the study of meaning was illogical. That would have been completely out of the left field. And the fact that you yourself acknowledged that you knew what he meant and chose to interpret his words differently because "The study of language is illogical" is an easier argument to counter than "Pedantry around what words mean is illogical" because the latter is and the former clearly isn't.


The statement "semantic arguments are illogical" isn't true under any interpretation of "semantics".

Then actually argue in favour of the idea that, as you put it, "hair-splitting about the meaning of words", isn't - at least as a general rule which it's reasonable to say when everyone's arguing about exactly what evil means instead of whether rules lawyering is bad (and yes, it was obvious that evil wasn't meant literally) - illogical.

Quertus
2020-11-30, 09:46 AM
That depends. If the rest of the group all likes to argue, then sure, either accept it or find another group. But if it's one person? I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

Like, if I wanted to periodically stop the game to play a round of Smash Bros, or MtG, I don't think anyone would need to "spotlight share" with me doing that - they'd be well within their rights to say "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D."

Also - "always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster"? That's assuming the player in question is even correct, and regardless it's creating a perverse incentive, the same way giving obnoxious shouty customers whatever they want just to shut them up does.


Which is not to say that I never rules-lawyer. But I always try to check the rubric for whether it's even merited:
1) Could the thing that happened plausibly be within the rules? For example, the GM has an enemy move and attack with two weapons. That's something that can be done with a feat that you can get at 1st level, so whether the GM remembered to actually give the NPC that feat I don't much care - they easily could have and it would still be the same CR.

2) Does it change anything? A player shoots at a prone enemy and hits by 10, but they forgot to take the take the prone modifier into account. But hitting by 6 is the same as hitting by 10 in this case, so no, it doesn't change anything.

3) Does it change anything important? On its last turn alive, the Ogre hits a PC for 7 damage. But really, it should have only been 5 damage because of some Strength damage it took. However, the PC didn't die and will still need the same amount of healing resources (because it's Lesser Vigor and will be enough for either, say). So while there was technically a change, it wasn't important. This one is a little subjective, because if it's very quick OOC, like a simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") then the threshold to be 'important' is much lower than if it's going to need an extended discussion.

The main area where I'd stress about something that other players might prefer to let fly is things happening "because plot", because that just grates on me. And even then, it's more that I want a justification. A city built so you can't teleport into it? Sure, that's possible, there's even a special underdark mineral to facilitate it. Some random forest blocking teleportation "just because" and not being considered unusual or strategically important by the world at large? Eh, now it bugs me.

Interesting take.

If the GM wants to get the rules wrong, we should respond, "Do that some other time, right now we're playing D&D." Because I don't think "butchering the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system…

Pretty much agree with your 1-3, with the note that I put emphasis on the importance of the simple reminder ("Counting the bonus for charging?") & properly training the table.

-----


always side with the rules lawyer so things get moving faster?

Well, it will make things faster, and help everyone have fun, won't it?

Perhaps more specifically, Always side with the Rules Traditionalist. Always side with the "Rule of Cool" player. Don't play with the Exploitation rules lawyer.

Basically, anyone you'd actually want to play with, why aren't you backing them up? Especially if you don't have to answer, "what's in it for me?", because the answer is simple: that faster game you were craving (and accusing the other person of stealing from you).

Granted, this is only [good] if they're right (that the rule that they are expressing is correct / would be cool). Imagine if the OP in this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?499590-Dealing-with-an-entitled-hissy-fitter) had said "he's right" rather than sitting through a 2 hour rules debate.

Myself, I "he's right" whoever I believe is right, whether that's the player or the GM. IME, that's the way that the healthiest groups work.

But, for those who cannot go that far as to become the Rules Encyclopedia, and give a more… discriminating response, I'll contend that defaulting to "he's right" for the Rules Traditionalist will put you in a much better mindset - and a much better game - than just staying silent will. Same for defaulting to "that sounds cool - let's do that" for the guy with the cool ideas. I need to work on this one myself

-----


I don't think "arguing about the rules" is an inherent part of the TTRPG experience that people necessarily sign up for when they agree to play D&D.

I think I've gotta disagree here.

If I'm playing… Smash Bros, then the system handles the rules engine, and there's no "arguing about the rules" minigame.

But if I'm playing MtG? Yeah, "Loxodon Warhammer has errata that makes it use keyworded 'lifelink' now". "Fast effects don't work that way, and 'Interrupt' is no longer a spell type". Oh, and the judges got this one wrong: "Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability, meaning that you can only use it once per trigger" (my housemate came back from the pre-release raving about that card, and I had to correct him / what the judges had said).

So I think that anyone who signs up for any human-interpreted rules and *doesn't* realize that they've signed up for rules debates is delusional.

-----


But if it's one person?

This is actually the tricky part.

Bob is deathly afraid of spiders. It's just one person, but you're going to completely ruin the game for him if you summon spiders and bring out that cool spider mini you love and have been looking forward to fielding. In fact, that's *why* you built this character, and have been playing them for the past year in anticipation of this moment.

Do you summon the spider, now that you've learned about Bob's fears?

Playing the game "with cheats" (not by the rules) completely ruins the game for me. Now that you know this, do you allow the rules to be handled wrong, or do you allow the conversation where I explain how Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability?

-----

That said, morality is hard. Maybe the groups that didn't understand that metamagics added to spell level would have been happier had they remained ignorant of the rules. Maybe "fixing" their game, making them stop casting Maximized Empowered Cure Light Wounds out of a 1st level spell slot, actually reduced their net happiness.

Power, responsibility, something something.

Tanarii
2020-11-30, 09:54 AM
Unfortunately, it's actually true for some DMs in black not blue text.
:smallwink:Sure.

And those DMs should be wanting to kill the PCs within the rules, and thus appreciate a successful rules lawyer. :smallamused:

Altheus
2020-11-30, 10:04 AM
I wouldn't say evil as such, I don't mind discussions of rules but NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME!!!!!

Also, once the GM has spoken the rules lawyer needs to stop arguing for things. Also, not complaining about calls that haven't gone the way they wanted.

Rulings not rules is the way of things at my table.

Dancingdeath
2020-11-30, 10:12 AM
This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

JNAProductions
2020-11-30, 11:18 AM
This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

If all you wanted was agreement, I’d recommend not posting something on a discussion forum.

Willie the Duck
2020-11-30, 12:35 PM
Rules Lawyers.... are they evil? I've encountered a few and they always kill the fun of a game. At least in my experience. If the only way they can feel they can have fun is to brag about their superior gaming knowledge then they can do so somewhere else. And God help you if you get one as your GM. They'll try to quiz people over rules, obsess over minutae, and generally terrorize the group with their tiny shred of power.
I may be a bit bitter over a recent experience with one over on rpol but I can't be the only one who feels this way right?

<preemptively replacing 'evil' with 'problematic' or maybe 'doing something wrong'>
Well, here's the thing -- much like 'powergamer,' 'min-maxer,' or whatever other gamer-type monikers one chooses to bring up, people most often use those terms for someone when they do the thing in excess or to the detriment of other people in the group having a good time. So are they a problem? Mostly only as a tautology since they don't get the term unless they are being a problem. Hardly unique to gaming. Sure you could use the term drinker for anyone who ever drinks, but if someone is known as 'a drinker,' it's probably because they drink to the level where it's a problem.

Beyond that, I am going to fall back on my standards of 'this is for what session 0 is designed,' and 'the purpose of the game is to be played and enjoyed, if something (anything) facilitates that, I applaud it, and if something is taken past that point and to the level where it is detrimental to that goal I do not applaud it.'

Talakeal
2020-11-30, 12:46 PM
I think there are three things that could be meant by rules lawyers:

Rules Knowledge: Someone with an incredible knowledge of the rules. This is neither good nor bad it is just a tool basically.

By-the-Rules: Those who have a preference (perhaps a strong preference) for doing things by the book. Few house-rules and all should be clarified ahead of time. Generally with little time for rule of "cool". These people aren't evil but could be a mismatch with the rest of the group.

Exploitation: People who conveniently forget rules that they don't want to be applied them, argue for any rules that they think will benefit them and may even change their interpretations of a rule depending on the situation. If is actual evil in play styles than this one might be evil.

I agree, when people say rules lawyer they typically mean one of these three things, the trouble is figuring out which one!

Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.

CharonsHelper
2020-11-30, 01:43 PM
This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

Can we say that people who paint large swaths of people with a broad brush as awful, are in fact themselves awful? :smallcool:

Ajustusdaniel
2020-11-30, 02:20 PM
Now, depending on the system and who's running the game that night, I'll often have a better grasp of the rules as they apply to my character, than the GM does. When, for example, I'm planning to pull shenanigans with light levels, I've sat down and worked out the fairly complex rules governing the interaction of ambient light, artificial light, and magical light and darkness in Pathfinder. As such, when I've done that research, and then invested in game resources (spells known or prepared, feats, or magical items bought) I feel fairly comfortable asserting that it does in fact work according to the rules, even when they are counterintuitive.

On the other hand, because I play with largely the same circle of people and our GM/table relationships aren't generally adversarial, if I come up with a particularly bizarre or powerful idea, I'll approach the GM to discuss it before making that investment and give them the opportunity to nix it as a houserule.

Alcore
2020-11-30, 05:11 PM
This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.

You wanted vindication? Definitely the wrong place to go.


You opened a discussion thread. You posed your questions and we answered. You have been mildly toxic for, and to, people providing different viewpoints.


Sorry you think i am an awful person and no amount of interection will ever change your mind...

Cluedrew
2020-11-30, 05:59 PM
Only one of those three sounds like a lawyer to me.Well I suppose it depends on the lawyer... and how broken the legal system is. But that is a debate for another day and probably a different website. Regardless to connections to real lawyers I know I only use one of the three but I have seen all of them used on occasion.


Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.I think that would be the "by-the-rules" type... or a particularly annoying sub-group of them. That one was definitely the broadest of the three - actually the first probably is the broadest, but not in a way that I feel it needs sub-division.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-11-30, 07:54 PM
This really isn't the site to go to if you just want people to agree with you that rules lawyers, however you define them, are awful.
It really isn't. Sorry :smalltongue:. If it's any consolation, it's the best site to visit if you want a rules lawyer on your side, too.


Are you kidding? That's the one definition of semantics that one sees all the time - literally every time I've heard someone say "That's just semantics."
Hmmm... interesting. I've literally never seen it used that way. I suppose it's an evolution of the common use of "semantics" to mean "arguing about the meaning of words rather than doing practical things" (this is the usage in Mirriam-Webster's first example), like the common use of "rocket science" to mean "very complicated stuff". It's metonymical; basically another word for "framing". Wonder why the dictionary doesn't just say "framing" :smallmad:.

It's possible it's more common in US English--Mirriam-Webster is a US dictionary, Oxford and Cambridge are British. I'm not precisely British, but my English leans that way.

(Also a good example of why pedantry around what words mean can be useful--regional usage differences can be quite striking.)


You're the one who saw someone saying "Semantic", clearly referring to technicalities about the meaning of words - specifically the meaning of the term "evil" - and then decided that rather than the common definition that 99% of people use, and the only one that made any sense in this context, they must really have meant the technical definition that you had to link because you knew that the person you were responding to wouldn't be familiar with it. You knew that wasn't what they meant - because why would you have to explain what someone means, to them, if they already meant it? - and chose to challenge what they meant because you judged them to be using the word incorrectly.
You know, I wasn't even talking about the use or meaning of "semantics" until you brought it up. I was pointing out that it's very funny to apply "illogical" to "semantics", which the OP might not have realized. Which is why I linked a page about the connection between logic and semantics. Maybe the humour was too subtle (I'll add more smalltongues next time), but it wasn't all that serious. This whole topic isn't that serious.


They obviously didn't mean that the study of meaning was illogical. That would have been completely out of the left field. And the fact that you yourself acknowledged that you knew what he meant and chose to interpret his words differently because "The study of language is illogical" is an easier argument to counter than "Pedantry around what words mean is illogical" because the latter is and the former clearly isn't.
You think I'm straw-manning, but I'm not--I'm actually arguing about something different than what you say I am. (To be clear: I don't think you're straw-manning me either. You're reading it differently than I intended. It happens.) What I take issue with is not "the study of language is illogical"--I mean, I take issue with it, but I don't think the OP meant that--but rather the idea that calling something "illogical" is pejorative (implying that "logical" is good, "illogical" is bad; I think the OP also meant to imply that "semantics"--in the "framing/hair-splitting" usage--is bad). People misuse "illogical" like that a lot, usually to dismiss things they don't like out of hand. Now, I think it's bad to associate "illogical" with "bad", or "waste of time", the way the OP and yourself seem to have used it here. So every now and then, it's worth challenging people on that sort of thing, in a light-hearted way. And the same thing goes for the use of "semantics"--even if we're talking about framing. It isn't illogical, it's not a waste of time, and it's not bad.

I'm pretty much done arguing about this in public--I think I've explained myself as much as is required. But you're more than welcome to send me a PM if you want to continue the discussion.

icefractal
2020-11-30, 08:07 PM
Perhaps more specifically, Always side with the Rules Traditionalist. Always side with the "Rule of Cool" player. Don't play with the Exploitation rules lawyer.

...

Myself, I "he's right" whoever I believe is right, whether that's the player or the GM. IME, that's the way that the healthiest groups work.Ah, ok, it sounded like you were saying "always side with the non-GM", which I'd disagree with - the GM is a player too, not some outsider who we should band together against.


But if I'm playing MtG? Yeah, "Loxodon Warhammer has errata that makes it use keyworded 'lifelink' now". "Fast effects don't work that way, and 'Interrupt' is no longer a spell type". Oh, and the judges got this one wrong: "Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability, meaning that you can only use it once per trigger" (my housemate came back from the pre-release raving about that card, and I had to correct him / what the judges had said).Well, two things -
1) Competitive games have a greater reason to stick strictly to the rules.
2) MtG rules are much tighter than D&D and have definitive answers to most things that don't require "argue about what the paragraph structure implies and which dictionary definition of particular words is more applicable".

Even so, I'd say that if we were playing casually and someone insisted on doing things with tournament-strictness, that would be a mismatch. Like, say my turn comes up and I draw a card and then untap my lands. That's wrong. It's against the rules. But 99% of the time it makes no difference (assuming I didn't try to do something between the events, obviously). If somebody demanded the game to immediately end because of that mistake, I wouldn't play with them again.


Playing the game "with cheats" (not by the rules) completely ruins the game for me. Now that you know this, do you allow the rules to be handled wrong, or do you allow the conversation where I explain how Circle of Affliction has a triggered ability?Sometimes players aren't compatible. If you require hour-long rules debates mid-game to have a good time, we shouldn't play at the same table. If we didn't find that out until after the game is already happening, one of us should probably leave - which one depends on how the rest of the group feels about it.

LordCdrMilitant
2020-11-30, 08:10 PM
I've generally taken pride in knowing the rules and knowing what they mean as written, so maybe I'm a rules lawyer. And I don't think rules lawyering is evil. The rules fundamentally govern how a player interacts with the game and how a player can expect actions attempted to be resolved.

I recently got very upset at my GM because a fellow party member cast Dimension Door and was targeting a space he couldn't see that happened to be occupied. The rules say, in no unambiguous terms, that the spell fails and you take damage. The GM decided that the spell would succeed and the player would be shunted to the next open space and take damage. This is obviously a big deal and drastically changed what would happen, and was a huge save for the player in question.

Quertus
2020-11-30, 08:41 PM
Some people also use rules lawyer to mean someone who is exceptionally argumentative about rules, or simply unwilling to stop debating and let something go.


I think that would be the "by-the-rules" type... or a particularly annoying sub-group of them. That one was definitely the broadest of the three - actually the first probably is the broadest, but not in a way that I feel it needs sub-division.

The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with Talakeal.

When I proudly proclaim that I'm a rules lawyer, I'm not saying that I'm knowable about the rules (some systems I am; others, I'm not). I'm not really trying to express that I'm a rules traditionalist (I mean, I am, and I think I'd like the GM to know that, too). And I'm certainly not trying to say that I'm into exploitation.

No, I think what I intend to communicate with that phrase is 1) that I *care* about the rules; 2) that I *enjoy* debating the rules¹.

Now, this can be viewed (by those who do not share the rules lawyer's passion for the rules) in all kinds of negative light, as an unwillingness to let things go. But, "dude - best part of the game!" Why would anyone ever "let that go"? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

It's like role-playing - why would anyone ever "let that go", or expect to have to let that go (outside "my guy")? Why would anyone expect "make the group better" to be something to consider letting go?

¹ actually, is more than just "enjoy" - I find debating the rules *fulfilling*. We defeated the lieutenant of the Evil Legion of Doom? Meh. Could be a plot railroad, or owed to Arangee, and will matter for at most this campaign. But a good rules session? That's a victory that we came by honest, and that will stick with us forever - the group has actually leveled up their skills! Rules lawyering makes all games going forward better! It's like exercise, but fun.

InvisibleBison
2020-11-30, 08:50 PM
No, I think what I intend to communicate with that phrase is 1) that I *care* about the rules; 2) that I *enjoy* debating the rules¹.

Now, this can be viewed (by those who do not share the rules lawyer's passion for the rules) in all kinds of negative light, as an unwillingness to let things go. But, "dude - best part of the game!" Why would anyone ever "let that go"? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

I'm not sure how serious you're being here. But assuming that you're completely in earnest: Debating the rules isn't actually part of the game.

Quertus
2020-11-30, 11:19 PM
Ah, ok, it sounded like you were saying "always side with the non-GM", which I'd disagree with - the GM is a player too, not some outsider who we should band together against.

Well, two things -
1) Competitive games have a greater reason to stick strictly to the rules.
2) MtG rules are much tighter than D&D and have definitive answers to most things that don't require "argue about what the paragraph structure implies and which dictionary definition of particular words is more applicable".

Even so, I'd say that if we were playing casually and someone insisted on doing things with tournament-strictness, that would be a mismatch. Like, say my turn comes up and I draw a card and then untap my lands. That's wrong. It's against the rules. But 99% of the time it makes no difference (assuming I didn't try to do something between the events, obviously). If somebody demanded the game to immediately end because of that mistake, I wouldn't play with them again.

Sometimes players aren't compatible. If you require hour-long rules debates mid-game to have a good time, we shouldn't play at the same table. If we didn't find that out until after the game is already happening, one of us should probably leave - which one depends on how the rest of the group feels about it.

For clarity, I *was* (mildly facetiously) encouraging "always side against the GM" - but as a "training mode". Gah, this is hard if you don't get the joke.

The GM is the one making the rulings; it is the process of making rulings (which is in the GM's hands) that this is intended to affect. Thus, it *looks like* "gang up against the GM", when, in fact, it is "gang up to make good process".

Or, if you want a longer version:

So, I don't *seriously* believe that "always side against the GM" is the optimal play. However, it takes 2 to tango rules lawyer, and, *usually*, the GM is always one of those two. So this technique is to train the GM to say "yes", and to train yourself to be involved. (Also, it's a reference to another poster saying that only rebellion overrides the GM, so I was encouraging "rebel early, rebel often".)

So, yes, I actually *could* see a group always siding against the GM (in fact, I've seen it IRL, when one or more of the players knew their ****, and the group repeatedly told the GM to can it until the GM got onboard). But even I don't actually "GM is always wrong" that way (although I should more often than I do for players with cool ideas).

So, no, it's not what I do, and I don't advocate it as a permanent solution, but, if a player lacks the ability to contribute in a better way, there are worse things to do in that situation than teaching the GM to say "yes". My contention is that "remaining silent" is one of them.

-----

Yes, sometimes, players really aren't compatible. However, as much as I enjoy multi-hour rules debates, I don't *require* them. So, if they're a negative for you, just "he's right" when it comes up, to get the GM to not drag their feet for multiple hours. That way, everyone can have their fun.

And, if an actually *interesting* rules question comes up, and I haven't been hogging the spotlight, maybe consider actually letting those of us who care crack open the books mid-session to see whether (say) the hardness of magical items actually changes in antimagic or not (most interesting sounding thread at a glance in the 3e forum). OTOH, if nobody knows, and nobody cares, I'm happy with a ruling on something like that.

Something fundamental, like, "do Metamagic feats require higher level spell slots" or "do we actually *have* to have an upkeep phase" I tend to want to actually research to get right; otherwise, I'm usually good with "anyone know the answer? Anyone care? No to both? OK, ruling?"

-----

Saying "tournament-strictness" is funny, because it was actually at a tournament where… darn senility… that one card got messed up. But those who play MtG with me know my mantra of "Untap, Upkeep, Draw" - and you'll hear children I've trained chanting it as they play. :smallcool:

My brother, on the other hand, managed to draw *before every single upkeep* when he had a newfangled rotting dinosaur in play, that made him discard a card every upkeep. Given that he's a spike who has won far more than his fair share of tournaments, I found *that* particular set of infractions annoying; most times, though, I'll just give a gentle reminder (not Nybor's).

-----

I've seen people argue both sides of whether having clear, tight rules should make rules lawyering more or less common. So I'll not weigh in on that at this time.

But "competitive"? No, I don't think that that's quite right. Puffer fish sushi is poisonous if done wrong (right?). Bad things can happen with nuclear reactors if you break the safety rules. Neither of those are competitive, yet they both sound like they'd have compelling reasons to stick to the rules.

I think what actually drives adherence to rules is the concept of stakes. Sure, competitions have built-in "win/lose" stakes, but the potential for the huge investment of time that a campaign represents to be wasted really *ought* to drive RPGs to follow rules more strongly than simple MtG matches, IMO.

icefractal
2020-12-01, 05:18 AM
"Stakes" is pretty accurate I think, and I'm not going to complain if someone wants the rules done exactly right when it's a life or death situation for the character.

What I've seen though, is people going into full argument mode over something that will make no meaningful difference. Like - what does it matter whether the arrow did 10 or 20 damage to you here? You're not dead either way, and we're going to rest after this fight, so it's really pretty moot.

As for "training the GM to say yes" - that assumes that's a desirable goal. I've been in games where one player pressures the GM into things a lot, and it's not great. And I'd note that the GM always saying "no" is as fast as always saying "yes" - not that I'd want to play that way either, less so in fact, but hey, it is fast.

I guess I am stipulating something here - that rules lawyers (or at least players indistinguishable from rules lawyers up to that point) are not always correct. I've seen a fair number of people sure that the rules worked the way they thought, insisted on looking them up, and then ... no, they were in fact just wrong. Hence my not assuming "yes" is correct.

Quertus
2020-12-01, 06:58 AM
"Stakes" is pretty accurate I think, and I'm not going to complain if someone wants the rules done exactly right when it's a life or death situation for the character.

What I've seen though, is people going into full argument mode over something that will make no meaningful difference. Like - what does it matter whether the arrow did 10 or 20 damage to you here? You're not dead either way, and we're going to rest after this fight, so it's really pretty moot.

As for "training the GM to say yes" - that assumes that's a desirable goal. I've been in games where one player pressures the GM into things a lot, and it's not great. And I'd note that the GM always saying "no" is as fast as always saying "yes" - not that I'd want to play that way either, less so in fact, but hey, it is fast.

I guess I am stipulating something here - that rules lawyers (or at least players indistinguishable from rules lawyers up to that point) are not always correct. I've seen a fair number of people sure that the rules worked the way they thought, insisted on looking them up, and then ... no, they were in fact just wrong. Hence my not assuming "yes" is correct.

Again, my stakes are "the entire campaign was a waste of time".

And training the GM to say yes to the rule encyclopedia rules traditionalist: knights cannot move diagonally like bishops, and you cannot just dump mana into Circle of Affliction.

Sure, the guy who *thinks* he knows the rules isn't always right. Which is why *I* side with whoever is right, so we can get back to something worth doing (I enjoy a *good* rules debate, not wallowing in human stupidity / ignorance).

But, if you don't know and don't care, if the player is someone worth playing with, why not side with them (and if they aren't, why play with them)?

My point is to try to change players' attitudes towards one conducive to changing GMs' attitudes towards creating a fun game for everyone.

And isn't that the goal, to have fun?

Seto
2020-12-01, 09:03 AM
Not only is the question dependent on your definition of a rules-lawyer, it's also very system-dependent. If I'm running a narrativist system where the assumption of the game is that rules serve the story, I'm fine with twisting the rules. If I'm running Pathfinder, I try to stick to the rules as much as I can because mechanical consistency and depth is such a huge part of that system's design. It's the kind of game where players seek a challenge that can only be fair if everybody is relying on the same agreed-upon rules.

So, I very much welcome at my table a player with deep rules knowledge, able to volunteer information on specific rules that I don't have in mind. However, even so, there might be cases where I don't go with the rules. For example, when they involve a complex subsystem unfamiliar to me, and I don't want to get into it. Or when I think a particular situation benefits from ad-hoc rules: one session comes to mind where the players were hunting a giant boar, and dug a trap in the form of a trench with sharp wooden spikes to interrupt a charge. Rather than applying a preexisting trap statblock, I whipped up something on the fly with a modified attack roll (against AC for damage, and against CMD to stop the charge). I ran it past the players, who thought it was fair, and we went with it. Even when I improvise an ad-hoc rule, fairness and consistency with general resolution rules are my goals. In the same way, when I commit a rules error, I generally correct it after the fact if it's detrimental to the PCs, and I don't correct it if it was beneficial to them.

I however get annoyed by players who plead with me every time I make a ruling that's not the best possible outcome for them. Some people truly believe that bargaining and negotiating about what happens is part of how TTRPGs are played. Hell, I'm sure some systems encourage such metagame negotiations. But not D&D.

TLDR: It's not a question of rules, it's a question of attitude. The arguments might be about rules, it might be about realism, or rule of cool, but the "lawyer" attitude is the same. The annoying "lawyery" players are those who consider that "argue with the GM to promote your characters' interests" is a normal and expected part of every session, rather than a way to solve an actual disagreement. Like, if you've got a real concern about fairness, by all means, I'm ready to hear it. But "bargaining with the GM" is not a minigame that I enjoy.
To put it another way, I guess I'm ready to hear "defensive" use of lawyering - you should be able to argue your case if you think I'm treating your character unfairly. But "offensive" use wears my patience down quickly - "the circumstances are so favorable, I really should get a +5 to that roll".

Talakeal
2020-12-01, 11:29 AM
One thing to remember is that RPGs are seldom written very precisely, and even the best written rules can still be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise. So you often get situations where two reasonable people come away with different readings of the same rule, and in this case they may think they are one type of rules lawyer while their friends think they are another.


Another type of rules lawyer that I see quite often are people who go by the letter of the rules rather than the spirit.



Also, I think the exploitative type of rules lawyer might be the most accurate to the term. I have talked to several lawyers irl who say that a lawyers job is to make the argument that will win the case regardless of truth, personal beliefs, facts, or what is right (from either a moral or legal standpoint) and it is expected of them to argue one interpretation today and a totally opposite one tomorrow if it helps them win.

Ajustusdaniel
2020-12-01, 12:06 PM
One thing to remember is that RPGs are seldom written very precisely, and even the best written rules can still be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise. So you often get situations where two reasonable people come away with different readings of the same rule, and in this case they may think they are one type of rules lawyer while their friends think they are another.


Another type of rules lawyer that I see quite often are people who go by the letter of the rules rather than the spirit.



Also, I think the exploitative type of rules lawyer might be the most accurate to the term. I have talked to several lawyers irl who say that a lawyers job is to make the argument that will win the case regardless of truth, personal beliefs, facts, or what is right (from either a moral or legal standpoint) and it is expected of them to argue one interpretation today and a totally opposite one tomorrow if it helps them win.

Quoth Aaron Burr, "The rules of D&D are whatever are boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."

Democratus
2020-12-01, 12:30 PM
Rules lawyers are the physicists of the RPG world.


Invaluable in discovering new ways to apply the rules of the world.
Capable of creating weapons of terrible power.

Xervous
2020-12-01, 12:34 PM
I subscribe to the exploitative definition of rules lawyer as the standard context. That being said I’m generally in the encyclopedic knowledge category and often end up facilitating whatever game it is being played. I was promised X rules system as a player but there’s arsepullomancy and rules bending five different ways to service the plot? That’s just me being lied to and my time wasted. If you can’t be honest about the game you want to run, can run, why should I put such faith in you as a storyteller or referee?

Telok
2020-12-01, 06:45 PM
I subscribe to the exploitative definition of rules lawyer as the standard context. That being said I’m generally in the encyclopedic knowledge category and often end up facilitating whatever game it is being played. I was promised X rules system as a player but there’s arsepullomancy and rules bending five different ways to service the plot? That’s just me being lied to and my time wasted. If you can’t be honest about the game you want to run, can run, why should I put such faith in you as a storyteller or referee?

Truth.

Although I'll also note that inexperienced DMs having troubles remembering or applying rules consistently tend to have "rules lawyer issues". It gets annoying being labelled a "**** rules lawyer" for PF/SF jump rules don't let elephant-like monsters with only a 60' base land speed make 60' vertical leaps from a standing start. Likewise D&D 5e stealth being an automatic success for NPCs casting darkness or invisibility when PCs have to take two rounds of actions and roll to beat the NPC's free active perception in addition to the passives... well it ticks off the DM but no amount of "rulings not rules" works when it's all "screw the players for the DM's power trip", and you'll still get slapped with the "**** rules lawyer label for it.

Zhorn
2020-12-01, 07:26 PM
Yeah, there's a big component of trying to understand intent of the person arguing for rules.

As a term, I always tend to hear the label of 'rules lawyer' being a negative with the assumption of the accused being the type trying to get away with something or pushing to ruin the game for others in some capacity, while often those I'd witnessed it be used against have tended to be more 'rules advocates', more trying to insist on fair and consistent treatment under either what had previously been established, or trying to stop a constant blindsiding of on-the-fly house rulings that are regularly skewed against the players (or particular players).

I like Cluedrew's list on #33 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?622987-Rules-Lawyers/page2&p=24822899#post24822899) and would build off it from there into four categories:

Rules Experts: They don't have an agenda and are generally just the 'database' types at the table that the DM and other players at the table can call of for references and clarification. They either know their stuff, or are masters at finding the answers quickly and efficiently as to answer questions without the game skipping a beat.

Rules Exploiters: What I would understand to be a 'rules lawyer', they bring up and cite rules that benefit them, ignore the ones that hinder them, and argue the grey areas in a similar fashion. Not all of what they do is bad as it can overlap with what the other definitions may do, but at the same time you want a rules expert around to keep them in check.

Rules Advocates: They are after a by-the-books game, be the consequences for their party be for good or ill. Minimal homebrew and protesting against house rules being introduced long after session zero, trying to keep the game being what was originally agreed upon.

Player Advocates: Mostly just trying to defend against an antagonistic DM, or guard against rulings and DM insistences that only serve to screw over the players.

FrogInATopHat
2020-12-02, 03:17 AM
Yes, and as far as the game is concerned, the DM is Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary all in one. Only a full-scale revolt can stop him (with drastic consequences). SO legally (using game rules as laws in this analogy), he's unassailable. Morally (and practically if he wants to have a game), there's a lot of things he should not do.

The point being, telling a DM "You're wrong, the rules say you have to X/can't do X" is meaningless. The rules say that the DM can do whatever he wants. It's better to say "if you don't rule X/do rule X, that would be bad for the fun of the table because PDQ reasons." Rulebooks make for very bad weapons. And the reverse goes for a DM claiming that they have to do X (where X is something anti-fun) because the rules say so. Rulebooks make even worse shields.

I agree with everything you said with the sole exception of a literal reading of your assessment of rulebooks as both weapons and shields*

*Depending on what everyone else is armed with.

Heavenblade
2020-12-02, 07:14 AM
As a gm (which is most of what I do) AND as a player. (which I dont do enough) Im more on the rule traditionalist side of things.

I don't mind doing shenanigans (especially with skill checks), and I will DEFINETLY homebrew stuff when its appropriate, but Ill always try to make stuff work WITHIN the rules first. As a player, as much as possible - also as a GM, but I think they have different rule priorities (I wont make up abilities for my character mid battle, but if its logical that a monster put up a trap and I just forgot to give it stats, Ill definetly make up a trap on the spot).

Also, I think (and I try to work like that) you can be a RAI traiditonalist, not only a RAW one. Play with the rules the way they are intended to be played with. Play to make a good story, not to fight the other players and/or GM.


With that said, I think a good way to differentiate between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is the following question - "what is the alternative?"


I played about two years ago with a group that was very new tothe game, including a first time GM. Many times during battle, people tried to make moves that would be super complicated/impossible by the rules (too many actions at once, didnt undersrand the spell effect correctly, etc.)


When I corrected the other players, I ALWAYS made sure I could offer an alternative solution.

"Yeah, burning hands wouldn't reach that guy...but if you just want to burn the barrel next to him, maybe you could try to firebolt instead?"


Stuff like that. Good rule lawyers don't just complain about how the rules work - they use their knowledge in order to make.stuff work within said rules.

Jay R
2020-12-02, 06:04 PM
A braggart is bad news; it doesn’t really matter what he’s bragging about.

Somebody who stops the game, argues, and refuses to accept the GM’s rulings is a bigger problem. She’s preventing the game from happening.

A player who likes to twist the rules for personal gain is a minor problem if the GM is firm, but a major one otherwise.

A player whose PC is more powerful than most because she knows the rules well and builds a character efficiently, but is always fair and honest with the rules, is a good player. As in poker, football, or any other game, good players can play better than poor ones. This is not a problem for me as a GM, but I try to convince her to help the other players build their characters.

But a player who knows the rules cold, can find a rule when I want it quickly, makes a good case for his interpretation, and then accepts the GM’s ruling, is a pearl beyond price. I always want one in the game; it makes it run smoother and faster.

Quertus
2020-12-02, 06:31 PM
I was promised X rules system as a player but there’s arsepullomancy and rules bending five different ways to service the plot? That’s just me being lied to and my time wasted. If you can’t be honest about the game you want to run, can run, why should I put such faith in you as a storyteller or referee?

Lol. Well said.

And definitely agree: if you cannot communicate what game we're playing, how can I have faith in your ability to communicate effectively elsewhere in the game? If you cannot manage a consistency as simple as "following the rules", how can I have faith in you to manage the greater consistency of running an intelligent game?


As a gm (which is most of what I do) AND as a player. (which I dont do enough) Im more on the rule traditionalist side of things.

I don't mind doing shenanigans (especially with skill checks), and I will DEFINETLY homebrew stuff when its appropriate, but Ill always try to make stuff work WITHIN the rules first. As a player, as much as possible - also as a GM, but I think they have different rule priorities (I wont make up abilities for my character mid battle, but if its logical that a monster put up a trap and I just forgot to give it stats, Ill definetly make up a trap on the spot).

Also, I think (and I try to work like that) you can be a RAI traiditonalist, not only a RAW one. Play with the rules the way they are intended to be played with. Play to make a good story, not to fight the other players and/or GM.


With that said, I think a good way to differentiate between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is the following question - "what is the alternative?"


I played about two years ago with a group that was very new tothe game, including a first time GM. Many times during battle, people tried to make moves that would be super complicated/impossible by the rules (too many actions at once, didnt undersrand the spell effect correctly, etc.)


When I corrected the other players, I ALWAYS made sure I could offer an alternative solution.

"Yeah, burning hands wouldn't reach that guy...but if you just want to burn the barrel next to him, maybe you could try to firebolt instead?"


Stuff like that. Good rule lawyers don't just complain about how the rules work - they use their knowledge in order to make.stuff work within said rules.

So much in your post I want to +1, but I especially want to point out and add to the bolded part.

"Starting with the rules" isn't just "is there a rule to cover this?", but knowing the general shape and feel of the rules, to know "what should a rule to cover this look/feel like?". That is, when you're looking for a rule to cover something, you're generally looking at related rules, putting yourself in a mindset conducive with creating a rule consistent with the rest of the ruleset, even if you *don't* find the specific rule that you were looking for.

I guess I agree that a "rules traditionalist" could lean towards RAI instead of RAW… but… if they're not of the school of "documented house rules before the game starts", and are changing every other rule mid-game… I think that, at some point, they need a new name, like "Simulationist" or "RAI interpreter" or something, because it's not clear how they relate to a RAW rules traditionalist at that point.

As for your idea of a "good" rules lawyer… how many ranks I have in Knowledge(the rules) will vary by system, but I'm a rather low-level rules lawyer, in that I generally only provide knowledge, not wisdom ("burning hands can't", not "how about…") (OK, that isn't actually "knowledge vs wisdom", but I'm not sure if it's my label or my example that's wrong, so I'm leaving it).

Actually trying people how to play their character… it could be taken well or poorly, depending. But rarely would giving that advice to the GM be taken well, by the GM *or* the players ("don't tell him that!"), IME.

P. G. Macer
2020-12-02, 09:05 PM
My take on the issue is that I’m what people have described in this thread as a “Rules Traditionalist”. I’m usually fine with homebrew and house rules provided that they are brought up and agreed to in Session Zero and consistently applied in play. But other than that, I stick to what’s written, whether it works in my favor or against me, though if a PC’s life isn’t on the line I’m willing to postpone any debates until after the session.

I’ve seen the term Rules Lawyer applied to the subcategories Rules Traditionalist and Rules Shark with roughly equal frequency, so it’s a bit surprising that people here seem to see it used to describe the latter more often, but that just boils down to differences in personal experience. I suspect that part of my issue is that a large portion of my D&D experience has been on Virtual Tabletops, and LFP listings there sometimes include phrases such as “No Rules Lawyers” or ”Rules Lawyers needn’t apply”, and from what else is written one can determine the context as to whether the poster meant Rules Traditionalists or Sharks. The former is usually indicated by keywords/phrases such as “casual” or ”Rule of Cool”, while the latter is usually the case when gripes about previous bad gaming/player experiences are present. So that’s how it ended up roughly 50/50 for me.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-02, 10:40 PM
The rules in a RPG exist primarily to bound reality and provide a basic expectation of how that reality works. In so far as a rules lawyer is trying to uphold that basic premise of just wanting a reasonably consistent reality, no, he isn’t evil. Arguably he also knows when the GM is surpassing reality for a clear special use case as opposed to malicious/ignorant intent.

But many RPGs are not light on rules. Even before splats, they often have well over 100 pages of stuff that is supposed to interact seamlessly and it has plentiful deliberate exceptions and special cases, errata, powers that need interpretation, and so forth. Not every clause of all of those is going to synch 100% with all the others - particularly as a system ages and you may literally have new writers and editors updating parts of a book while other parts remain the original text. Let alone outsourced contract splats.

When the “lawyering” is finding cases where those clauses deliberately act in an unintended manner to defy the bounds of reality (and they will, because it is easy if dull work to find this sort of thing) then yes, they are evil. They are evil because they are attacking the fundamental source of the RPG by seeking to deliberately undermine the basic reality it operates on, and in doing so are attacking the fun of everyone else at the table.

icefractal
2020-12-03, 05:07 AM
When the “lawyering” is finding cases where those clauses deliberately act in an unintended manner to defy the bounds of reality (and they will, because it is easy if dull work to find this sort of thing) then yes, they are evil. They are evil because they are attacking the fundamental source of the RPG by seeking to deliberately undermine the basic reality it operates on, and in doing so are attacking the fun of everyone else at the table.IDK, I find that kind of thing interesting at least, and sometimes a great addition to the world.

Like personally, rules that only serve the needs of the story and never suggest that story are ok, but not the best. Stuff like "making a space-ship with a bunch of Mage Hand traps"? That's awesome, that feels like you're in a real world, able to invent and discover stuff. Because to me, part of what makes a fictional world feel real is not fitting the tropes perfectly, having some odd corners to it and unexpected things to find.

Now sure, if the way that it defies the bounds of reality is "you win everything forever", like Pun Pun, then it's not suitable to actually use in a game. But really, neither would a RAI version of Pun Pun (playing as Ao?) in 99.9% of campaigns.

skyth
2020-12-03, 05:23 PM
I get annoyed when I make plans/expend resources based on what the rules are and the GM decides that they don't want the rules to work that way...And it's past the point of no return.

It's also why I only GM...

Zhorn
2020-12-03, 08:23 PM
I get annoyed when I make plans/expend resources based on what the rules are and the GM decides that they don't want the rules to work that way...And it's past the point of no return.

Ah yes, one of the (many) reasons I left my last game. Just getting so fed up with the DM introducing new houserules week by week or on the fly to ensure events and scenes would play out to his plan no matter what the players were do to get around challenges.
Session zero asked if there were any house rules and if we could count on rules from the book being a given. "No house rules, yes to official rules in published books." neat.
Proceed to every week with a new houserule coming into play, and any time you explain you want to do a thing and include a reference to the book of where such a ruling is found that you are basing you action on, it'll get houseruled the moment it's in play to have some complication and drawback.
Even when you base actions and plans on rulings or situation that align with something the DM has already establish, it would be changed that sessions to ensure the hazard/complication he wanted was going to be unavoidable.
So glad I left. No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Talakeal
2020-12-04, 02:06 PM
Ah yes, one of the (many) reasons I left my last game. Just getting so fed up with the DM introducing new houserules week by week or on the fly to ensure events and scenes would play out to his plan no matter what the players were do to get around challenges.
Session zero asked if there were any house rules and if we could count on rules from the book being a given. "No house rules, yes to official rules in published books." neat.
Proceed to every week with a new houserule coming into play, and any time you explain you want to do a thing and include a reference to the book of where such a ruling is found that you are basing you action on, it'll get houseruled the moment it's in play to have some complication and drawback.
Even when you base actions and plans on rulings or situation that align with something the DM has already establish, it would be changed that sessions to ensure the hazard/complication he wanted was going to be unavoidable.
So glad I left. No D&D is better than bad D&D.

I feel you.

I had a DM once who basically made up the rules as he went along, claimed they were the official rules, and then banned all books from the table to prevent “rules lawyering”.

BRC
2020-12-04, 02:27 PM
I think the main thing to consider about whether a rules lawyer is a problem or not comes down to something independent of their motives or methods.

It's their willingness to slow down or stop the game to hash out a debate.

Whether they're trying to exploit some unclear wording, or just trying to hold the GM to a strict reading of the rules text, rules lawyering usually becomes a problem when the game has to stop for a lengthy debate. My response when such things come up is to make a snap judgement and say "This is how this is going to work right now, we can go over the actual text later and figure out if I'm right", and we can go through things in the future. Personally, I'd rather have somebody who tries to exploit something, but accepts it after the GM says no, than somebody who just wants the rules to be followed, but insists on digging through errattas and FAQs.

but, if the question can't be clearly answered by just looking up and reading the relevant line of the rules out loud, unless it's a super critical moment (Like life or death for a PC), the table isn't the place to have that discussion. It's between sessions, so things can be fairly adjucated in the future.


That said, I ALSO firmly believe in something I call the "Sanity Rule", which is to say that the CHARACTERS are fully aware of the rules by which their abilities operate. If a player casts a spell and says "It does X", and I, as the GM, disagree that the spell can do X, the player should get a chance to take back their action, since their character would have known that the spell COULDN'T do X, and therefore wouldn't have tried.
Similarly, if you made a choice or took some class feature under the assumption it worked a certain way, only to be contradicted later, it's the DM's job to give you a chance to rework that so you didn't waste your choice.

When all else fails, I use what I call the Arbitrary Justice Roll. If it's unclear what should happen in the situation, figure out some sort of test or check, or just flip a coin, to resolve it one way or another.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-04, 10:52 PM
Re: “Mage Hand Spaceship”. I still think this falls under the bounding of reality if you will. In a setting like planescape or spelljammer, there is an understanding that wacky magi-tech and mind-bending-shifts-in-paradigm are all part of the game. In a “faerun classic”, so to speak, when one player insists they can break the setting because of triggering clauses a-f in succession as written...well, that’s pretty much saying screw you to everyone who is looking for Faerun.

In addition, rules lawyers who look for ways to break the setting typically do so in order to weasel out of consequences that any reasonable understanding of that setting would accept, or to engage in pre-adolescent “I win because I’m cool!” behavior.

That’s a very different beast than a guy saying “hey, look, you calculated falling damage wrong, a ten foot drop only does X.”

NigelWalmsley
2020-12-04, 11:39 PM
Like personally, rules that only serve the needs of the story and never suggest that story are ok, but not the best. Stuff like "making a space-ship with a bunch of Mage Hand traps"? That's awesome, that feels like you're in a real world, able to invent and discover stuff. Because to me, part of what makes a fictional world feel real is not fitting the tropes perfectly, having some odd corners to it and unexpected things to find.

IMO, it's not even just about finding cool odd corners. It's also about the things people do in the world making sense in the context of the rules. One of the things that always pissed me off about Eberron is that it bills itself as a Magic Industrial Revolution setting, but instead of doing that in a way that's based on the existing rules, the magitech is just a bunch of stuff that Baker made up.


than somebody who just wants the rules to be followed, but insists on digging through errattas and FAQs.

Frankly (and maybe this is a skewed perception based on flaws particular to the systems with which I am familiar), even as someone who tends towards the Rules Lawyer side of things, I've never found errata or FAQs to produce rules that are better to a degree that makes it worth digging through them. 3e's Polymorph rules or 4e's Skill Challenge rules or Shadowrun's Matrix rules have all gone through double-digit numbers of revisions in various places, but none of those ever resulted in something that was a substantively better starting point than what was printed in the original books.


if the question can't be clearly answered by just looking up and reading the relevant line of the rules out loud, unless it's a super critical moment (Like life or death for a PC), the table isn't the place to have that discussion. It's between sessions, so things can be fairly adjucated in the future.

Absolutely. One of the big mistakes people make is defaulting to "the DM decides" as the way of resolving rules decisions. But the rules aren't a set of decrees made by the DM, they're a shared social contract that governs the cooperative storytelling exercise. Just as you presumably decided what game system to use as a group, you can and should determine how to patch holes in that system as a group.


That said, I ALSO firmly believe in something I call the "Sanity Rule", which is to say that the CHARACTERS are fully aware of the rules by which their abilities operate.

This is absolutely critical. Roleplaying is, fundamentally, about answering the question "what would my character do". That requires an accurate understanding of the (perceived) potential consequences of your character's actions. If the rules that govern the reality of the game can be changed out from under you, roleplaying becomes impossible, because you can no longer model your character's reality well enough for them to make consistent decisions.


Re: “Mage Hand Spaceship”. I still think this falls under the bounding of reality if you will. In a setting like planescape or spelljammer, there is an understanding that wacky magi-tech and mind-bending-shifts-in-paradigm are all part of the game. In a “faerun classic”, so to speak, when one player insists they can break the setting because of triggering clauses a-f in succession as written...well, that’s pretty much saying screw you to everyone who is looking for Faerun.

The problem is that it's rarely that clear-cut. The issue usually isn't someone doing something that flagrantly and directly breaks the setting (precisely because people are generally on board with whatever the agreed-upon setting is). More often, it's a result of more subtle conflicts of expectations, or of things that build up gradually over the course of a campaign. You're unlikely to get someone trying the Mage Hand Spaceship in the Forgotten Realms. But in an Eberron game where that player is thinking "fantasy Cold War" while other people are thinking "fantasy Industrial Revolution" or "fantasy Indiana Jones"? That's a lot more plausible.

NichG
2020-12-05, 12:58 AM
For me, I think the problematic kind of 'Rules Lawyer' isn't really about specific behaviors so much as it comes down to a divergence in values about what the time at the table means and what it's purpose is. It would be hard for me to tolerate playing for an extended period with someone who places higher value on playing the game correctly than on people at the table having fun. And that's really the whole of it I think - everything else flows from there.

Someone who interrupts the flow of the game to quibble over a +1 bonus that would give the PCs an advantage and let one person's character stay up whereas without it they'd be KO'd, but doesn't remind the GM of a -1 penalty that would get their character killed? If they're doing that because they noticed that the group has been bummed and feeling in over their heads and in survival mode against overly challenging encounters and the GM (presumably me in this example) hasn't noticed, then I might be annoyed in the moment but in terms of the long-term that's exactly the kind of player I want to have.

If they're doing that because they want to exert dominance over me or another player by e.g. 'not letting the GM have their way' or winning some PvP thing or pushing a mechanical arms race? Same behavior, but the attitude is going to be a problem for me long term.

Similarly, someone who is completely and utterly fair about pushing for the rules to be followed to the extent where it's going to interfere with another player's good time - for example insisting that someone's build which they've been having fun with can't work on a technicality like Monks not being proficient in Unarmed Strike - would be problematic for me long term even if they're always completely technically correct about what they say.

And something like interrupting the flow of the game to have a pedantic argument can also be either okay, or a problem in divergent values. If the player has honest confusion and is resolving that before it becomes a larger problem for them and the table (for example they've correctly identified that without clarification, its likely people at the table will regret choices they're about to make), that's great! If it turns out that they've made an error as to how important that particular point of the rules actually is, well, errors happen. If having all points no matter how trivial be resolved to their satisfaction is so important to them that it's okay in their mind if no one else gets to play the game until things are settled, it's a long-term problem because they're under-valuing the time of the other players and the GM.

Same goes for the GM. If the GM is doing 'rulings not rules' as part of ensuring good levels of enjoyment and participation from players at the table, great! If they're using 'I will run RAW to the letter' to the same effect (because of the specific players they have and their preferences, or because of some special context like tournament play), great! If they use either because they value those things more than the enjoyment of the group, that's going to be a problem either way.

Quertus
2020-12-05, 08:36 AM
Similarly, someone who is completely and utterly fair about pushing for the rules to be followed to the extent where it's going to interfere with another player's good time - for example insisting that someone's build which they've been having fun with can't work on a technicality like Monks not being proficient in Unarmed Strike - would be problematic for me long term even if they're always completely technically correct about what they say.

"You actually have to pay to add metamagic effects to spells - they aren't added for free once you take the feat."

"You actually have to 'pay' levels for LA - it isn't free."

"No, you don't get to roll HD for your LA."

"No, you don't get saving throws, skill points, or max ranks for your LA."

"No, you can't just put all your skill points into one skill."

"How many more times can you cast that spell? … What do you mean, you haven't kept track?"

"No, you can't become proficient in a weapon when you took a flaw explicitly preventing you from becoming proficient with it."

"Being proficient with your armor does not remove arcane spell failure chance."

"No, you can't start at 1st level in that prestige class - they have prerequisites."

"You know that Animate Dead requires (~expensive) onyx as a material component, right?"

"No, Invisibility doesn't make you silent."

"No, Invisibility doesn't protect you from scent."

"You know that that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, right?"

That's the rules lawyering I can remember doing (in 3e) that "interfere[d] with another player's good time”.

I'm a real killjoy.

NichG
2020-12-05, 01:51 PM
"You actually have to pay to add metamagic effects to spells - they aren't added for free once you take the feat."

"You actually have to 'pay' levels for LA - it isn't free."

"No, you don't get to roll HD for your LA."

"No, you don't get saving throws, skill points, or max ranks for your LA."

"No, you can't just put all your skill points into one skill."

"How many more times can you cast that spell? … What do you mean, you haven't kept track?"

"No, you can't become proficient in a weapon when you took a flaw explicitly preventing you from becoming proficient with it."

"Being proficient with your armor does not remove arcane spell failure chance."

"No, you can't start at 1st level in that prestige class - they have prerequisites."

"You know that Animate Dead requires (~expensive) onyx as a material component, right?"

"No, Invisibility doesn't make you silent."

"No, Invisibility doesn't protect you from scent."

"You know that that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, right?"

That's the rules lawyering I can remember doing (in 3e) that "interfere[d] with another player's good time”.

I'm a real killjoy.

Values, not actions. Each of these could be either fine or problematic. Helping a player learn the game, preventing someone from committing to a build that won't work, even managing a system where running with the mistake will cause unpleasantness later or maintaining consistency so players can reason about the world can all be motivated by valuing the fun of people at the table. But it has to recognize the 'why' of the rule in terms of what purpose it has in making the game enjoyable rather than sanctifying the act of correctly following rules itself

I have a problem when 'the rules should be followed' becomes more important than 'the rules should help enable and enhance the enjoyment of the people playing the game'.

WanderingMist
2020-12-05, 02:10 PM
Depends:

Are they just a stickler, or are they a total hypocrite?

The first kind's all right, maybe a bit stuffy, but they will follow the rules, even if it bites them.

The second kind will only insist upon following the rules if it benefits them, and if the DM tries to use their ruling against them later, they'll claim that's not the way the rule works.

noob
2020-12-05, 04:19 PM
I did cause aoos on my ally when I suddenly said "but those monsters are gigantic don't they have reach?"

Quertus
2020-12-05, 10:00 PM
Values, not actions. Each of these could be either fine or problematic. Helping a player learn the game, preventing someone from committing to a build that won't work, even managing a system where running with the mistake will cause unpleasantness later or maintaining consistency so players can reason about the world can all be motivated by valuing the fun of people at the table. But it has to recognize the 'why' of the rule in terms of what purpose it has in making the game enjoyable rather than sanctifying the act of correctly following rules itself

I have a problem when 'the rules should be followed' becomes more important than 'the rules should help enable and enhance the enjoyment of the people playing the game'.

Underlying values? Hmmm… I'm not sure what mine are, actually.

I've met rules lawyers / rules experts who *probably* had the values you seek. Since mine don't exactly match theirs, I can at least say that I redirect a strict search of "is value xyz" to return false.

I *suspect* that I find consistency to be a prerequisite for *at least* my enjoyment (and for intelligence), so I'm at least Neutral, protecting my own fun. Now, if the GM says, "nah, we don't pay for LA around here", well, that's consistency, and I've got some rules to investigate / some otherwise prohibitively "expensive" character concepts to run. :smallwink:

LudicSavant
2020-12-06, 01:47 AM
I find it useful to differentiate between "rules traditionalists" and "rules hagglers."

Rules traditionalists just want to play by the rules were set forth to them. They are often open to houserules, but would prefer to be told about them beforehand rather than have the rug suddenly pulled out from under them.

Rules hagglers, on the other hand, are not trying to see that the rules are being followed. They are trying to haggle to gain an advantage for their side, much like a lawyer who values whether they win the case far more than whether or not the trial was fair. They can most readily be identified by things like, say, only selectively remembering rules, when it would be to their advantage.

Xervous
2020-12-07, 07:29 AM
Rules traditionalists just want to play by the rules were set forth to them. They are often open to houserules, but would prefer to be told about them beforehand rather than have the rug suddenly pulled out from under them.


Baseball means baseball, not calvinball more or less.

Seto
2020-12-07, 07:56 AM
I find it useful to differentiate between "rules traditionalists" and "rules hagglers."

Rules traditionalists just want to play by the rules were set forth to them. They are often open to houserules, but would prefer to be told about them beforehand rather than have the rug suddenly pulled out from under them.

Rules hagglers, on the other hand, are not trying to see that the rules are being followed. They are trying to haggle to gain an advantage for their side, much like a lawyer who values whether they win the case far more than whether or not the trial was fair. They can most readily be identified by things like, say, only selectively remembering rules, when it would be to their advantage.

Yeah, this. I'd even add that essentially, those players are "hagglers", not necessarily "rules hagglers". Some hagglers argue with rules, some with other arguments. I've had the odd rule-haggler in my game ("falling doesn't take an action, so I can fall 30 ft and full attack in the middle of that"), but one of my regular players is actually a "narrative haggler". Essentially arguing for circumstance bonus (or circumstance penalty to a monster) everytime she can. "Come on, my entrance was badass, the enemy should flee/take a malus to their attacks". "Come on, don't we get a bonus for the cool speech we just made?".
I also think that hagglers aren't necessarily hypocrites, or they may not even be trying to "win" the game. It's just a particular school of tabletop gaming, where negotiating with the GM is an integral part of conflict resolution, and "convincing the GM" is a minigame. Some people think of it as part of the game, just like some people (and some merchants) enjoy haggling over the sale of an item. It's just not part of my comfort zone as a GM or a player, and as such I'd rather avoid it in my games.

Quertus
2020-12-08, 11:12 PM
Yeah, this. I'd even add that essentially, those players are "hagglers", … "convincing the GM" is a minigame. Some people think of it as part of the game, just like some people (and some merchants) enjoy haggling over the sale of an item. It's just not part of my comfort zone as a GM or a player, and as such I'd rather avoid it in my games.

You've reminded me…

*As a rule*, I hate haggling. From any of the 3 roles (haggler, GM, or observer).

However,

A) I do enjoy having a player who *rarely* makes a moment feel *special* by attempting to haggle it;

B) occasionally, as GM, I will *prompt* the players to haggle a result (often, this is a "they missed the roll by 2 points - can anyone think of an advantage that I failed to give them" scenario).

I feel that it's nice to give those who enjoy haggling the opportunity to do so, especially at the dramatically-appropriate moments.

Even though I, personally, generally hate the practice.

Amdy_vill
2020-12-09, 04:33 PM
The Answer is a little bit of both. really depends on the table, but there's also a big thing I like to call build lawyers players that build themselves around specific rules and only rules lawyer those rules because that was the build they wanted to play. I have found most Rules lawyers at least in modern times fall into this. I have been labeled a rules lawyer for going in on the social encounter rules on a character build whole around that.

back to the question. I depend if your table is more machinery focused they tend to be great, but the more you table cares about the rule of cool, story, and 3rdparty/homebrew the more of a problem they become. unlike most "Bad Player" stereotypes it's not that they're bad or problem players its that they are at the wrong table.

Democratus
2020-12-10, 02:10 PM
The Answer is a little bit of both. really depends on the table, but there's also a big thing I like to call build lawyers players that build themselves around specific rules and only rules lawyer those rules because that was the build they wanted to play. I have found most Rules lawyers at least in modern times fall into this. I have been labeled a rules lawyer for going in on the social encounter rules on a character build whole around that.

I think that makes sense. Lawyers often specialize. I wouldn't hire an Intellectual Property lawyer to defend me in a murder trial. Unless I murdered someone's IP, of course. :smallcool:

noob
2020-12-10, 02:15 PM
I think that makes sense. Lawyers often specialize. I wouldn't hire an Intellectual Property lawyer to defend me in a murder trial. Unless I murdered someone's IP, of course. :smallcool:

How do you murder an intellectual property?

InvisibleBison
2020-12-10, 03:07 PM
How do you murder an intellectual property?

Kill everyone who knows about it and destroy all the evidence.

noob
2020-12-10, 03:26 PM
Kill everyone who knows about it and destroy all the evidence.

That sounds like the ring but with the ghost not wanting people to know.

Jay R
2020-12-10, 03:34 PM
How do you murder an intellectual property?

Synthetic gene splicing. The first true AI.

WanderingMist
2020-12-10, 03:59 PM
Kill everyone who knows about it and destroy all the evidence.

Logically this would end in suicide since you'd be the last person who knew about it.

InvisibleBison
2020-12-10, 04:15 PM
Logically this would end in suicide since you'd be the last person who knew about it.

You're quite correct. My description of this procedure should not be taken as a recommendation to perform it.

Alcore
2020-12-11, 12:03 AM
Logically this would end in suicide since you'd be the last person who knew about it.

Now now! Don't rule lawyer it :smallbiggrin:


Leave some ambiguities for haggling :smallamused:

Xervous
2020-12-11, 07:32 AM
Now now! Don't rule lawyer it :smallbiggrin:


Leave some ambiguities for haggling :smallamused:

You only need to kill the part of you that knows. Cook a part of your brain like Zaphod.

Democratus
2020-12-11, 09:05 AM
And suddenly this thread got much more awesome! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Vahnavoi
2020-12-11, 10:37 AM
How do you murder an intellectual property?

Malign the holder or creator of that IP, preferably by proxy, until the public opinion turns against them. Then when they're in sufficient financial trouble, you buy out the IP from under them. Once you hold the IP, you lock it in a vault, don't let anyone do anything interesting with it and sue anyone who tries to do so without going through you.

Alternatively, if you already have the necessary wealth, you skip the first step, just buy rights to the IP, then put that IP in hands of incompetent hacks. Once they've enraged both existing and potential fans and nobody believes in the IP anymore, you can shelf the property and be reasonably safe that everyone will just forget about it.